PRIVATE BUSINESS

London Local Authorities Bill  [Lords]

Considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions

SCOTLAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Memorandum of Understanding

Andrew Pelling: Whether he intends to review the memorandum of understanding governing relations between the UK Government and the Scottish Executive.

Des Browne: I do not intend to review the memorandum of understanding between the Government and the devolved Administrations. It is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor.

Andrew Pelling: It is clear that Strathclyde police and the Met worked very closely and effectively over the incident at Glasgow airport. Will the Secretary of State clarify whether counter-terrorism should be regarded as a devolved matter and, bearing in mind the seriousness of the threat posed to the United Kingdom, whether indeed it should be?

Des Browne: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman knows the answer to that question. Counter-terrorism is a reserved matter. Our experience of the police investigations over the past week or so suggests that it is probably fixed as a reserved matter. In fact, devolution fits quite comfortably into that, even where policing is devolved, as it is in Scotland, where Strathclyde police, as he rightly points out, played a blinder, to coin a phrase, in the work that they did in co-operation across the UK.

Adam Ingram: I understand that my right hon. Friend does not need to review the memorandum of understanding, but will he, in his discussions with the Scottish Executive, take the opportunity to raise the recent announcement that could result in the loss of 900 jobs in my constituency if the Freescale closure goes ahead? Will he impress upon the new Scottish Executive that it is much more important to fight for jobs in Scotland than to talk about separation from the United Kingdom, which would put investment in Scotland at risk?

Des Browne: I understand the concern that my right hon. Friend, as the constituency Member for East Kilbride, shares with the 900 people who might lose their jobs if Freescale closes. He will know that the Scottish Executive gave significant support—about £1.9 million of regional selective assistance—to the company when it was known as Motorola. These matters are, and have been, the responsibility of the Scottish Executive, and they should not take their eye off the ball in meeting their responsibility to ensure that they create and sustain jobs for the benefit of people in Scotland—a record that we were rightly proud of having achieved when we ran the Executive.

Gavin Strang: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the attack on Glasgow airport makes it more important than ever that we improve public transport access to our Scottish airports? That means investment in heavy rail into Glasgow airport and Edinburgh airport, as well as the new tram line to Edinburgh airport. Will he ask our new Transport Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Ruth Kelly), to make it clear to the Scottish Executive that they should accept the democratic decision of the Scottish Parliament, let us get on with investing in trams and public transport and work with the British Government?

Des Browne: My right hon. Friend has a certain expertise in relation to transport. However, without that expertise, but as one who regularly uses both airports, I know how important it is that we build the infrastructure. It is important for not only security, as we saw from the attack on the airport building in Glasgow, but the sustainability of these drivers of the economy. I echo what he says. The will of the Scottish people in relation to these transport links is clear and democratically expressed, and we in the UK Government, particularly in the Department for Transport, stand ready to be of any assistance that we can in achieving that will.

Angus Robertson: The arrangements between the UK Government and the Scottish Government have worked particularly well in the past few weeks since the terrorist—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must allow the hon. Gentleman to express himself. He is in order and it is important that others allow him to speak.

Angus Robertson: For those who could not hear me the first time, the arrangements between the Scottish Government and the UK Government have been working particularly well since the terrorist attack on Glasgow airport. Will the Secretary of State take the opportunity to praise all those involved in countering the challenge of terrorism in Glasgow and elsewhere?

Des Browne: That is probably the easiest question that anyone has ever asked me at the Dispatch Box, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for it. I have absolutely no difficulty in repeating what I have said consistently since the incident: all those involved in responding to the immediate circumstances—those present at the scene, members of the public, those who provided services, members of the uniformed services who showed extraordinary bravery in difficult circumstances and those involved in investigating and responding to events—have worked very well and they are a credit to their services, themselves, Scotland and the United Kingdom. This is a fine example of those in the United Kingdom working collectively, and good evidence for why we should keep that Union.

Julian Lewis: It is almost as great a pleasure to question the right hon. Gentleman on Scotland from the Back Benches as it is to question him on defence from the Front Bench.
	Should there be, as is widely feared, a proposal to close one of our three naval bases, and the right hon. Gentleman receives representations from the Scottish Executive that it should not be Faslane, but gets suggestions, while wearing his Ministry of Defence hat, that it should be, how will he resolve such a conflict of interest?

Des Browne: The hon. Gentleman asks not only a speculative question, which he knows I will not answer, but a complicated, speculative question. I think that I can respond to what underlies the question. I pride myself on the fact that every decision I made as Secretary of State for Defence, and in every other ministerial portfolio I have held, was made in the interests of the responsibilities I had in the job. I will continue to make decisions on defence in the interests of the defence of the United Kingdom, so there will be no conflict of interest.

Brian H Donohoe: As a fellow Ayrshire Member of Parliament, will my right hon. Friend extend to Glasgow Prestwick the congratulations and willingness to give support shown to Glasgow Abbotsinch? Prestwick was able to take diverted flights that day and the next without a single loss to the time-scheduled business of the airlines.

Des Browne: Everyone who played their part in ensuring a response throughout Scotland's transport infrastructure that Saturday afternoon and into the Sunday, to ensure the safety of passengers and the public, deserves praise. Indeed, those at Glasgow Prestwick airport, which is just at the edge of my constituency, but unfortunately not in it, although it is in that of my hon. Friend, are entitled to credit for what they did to respond. That added to the safety of the people of Scotland, but also to their ability, given that many wanted to go on holiday that day, to do so with the minimum of disruption.

Alistair Carmichael: I welcome the Secretary of State to his new position, and I congratulate him, and the Minister of State on a well-deserved promotion.
	The initial answer of the Secretary of State notwithstanding, does he not accept that the division of responsibilities between this place and the Parliament at Holyrood is now a topic that is ripe for review, as Jack McConnell, Wendy Alexander and others have argued? If he were to join me in leading the call for reform of the constitutional convention, he could put his Department at the fulcrum of that debate.

Des Browne: Like the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), who leads the hon. Gentleman's party, I am wary of invitations to join anyone, lest the doors open in a fashion that one does not expect. I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his position. I understand that, like me, he has dual responsibilities and I congratulate him on his promotion to both those challenging jobs. I look forward to working for him—sorry, with him.  [ Laughter. ] It was bound to happen. I look forward to working for him as a citizen of Scotland.
	The hon. Gentleman, like me, was around in Scotland when a lot of the work was done, and he knows fine well that the devolution settlement, which was intended for the long term, took a long time to agree.

Angus MacNeil: It was a process.

Des Browne: The hon. Gentleman says it was a process; we need to check the quotation that the right hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) constantly uses, because I think that he has it the wrong way round. In any event, to get back to the question, the settlement took some time.
	The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) and the members of his party never gave up their ambition of federalism. I understand that—they are entitled to come to the Chamber and ask questions that are designed to mask that federalist ambition. My view is that the settlement, which was cast for the long term, has not yet lasted that long term. It is still robust enough in its current form to serve the people of Scotland. He knows that the Scotland Act 1998 has a pragmatic mechanism for adjusting the settlement, if necessary, by orders in the House. I believe that there were 18 last year. The solution is perfectly pragmatic and can be adjusted. We need to spend less time arguing about the constitutional issues to do with the settlement and more time making it work for the people of Scotland.

David Mundell: May I associate Conservative Members with the Secretary of State's remarks about the emergency services and members of the public who showed such bravery in the face of the incident at Glasgow airport?
	I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to the Scotland Office and wish him well in his endeavours. I also welcome the new Minister of State. Given that we are all three staunch Unionists who are committed to making the devolution settlement work, I hope that we will make much common cause in the months ahead.
	I do not want to begin by telling the Secretary of State how to do his job. However, I encourage him to eschew the complacency of his immediate predecessors and take a direct interest in the evolving mechanisms to allow full, frank and effective working relationships between London and Edinburgh. If it is not his job to review the memorandum of understanding, will he point out to the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor that it states that,
	"this document will be reviewed by representatives of the administrations at a meeting of the Joint Ministerial Committee, at least annually and updated as necessary."?

Des Browne: Like devolution, the memorandum of understanding is a pragmatic document. It was intended to serve not the processes but the people of Scotland. It has served the people of Scotland, in that methods of working in the spirit, if not necessarily the letter, of the memorandum have been found to benefit them. Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that we should have meetings for the purpose of meetings?

David Mundell: The Secretary of State has already made it clear that he understands that some Members of the Scottish Parliament interpreted the Government's actions in recent times as compromising the spirit, if not the letter, of the memorandum. What can he say to the House today to reassure Members of the Scottish Parliament that arrangements between London and Edinburgh will be based on mutual respect? What steps will he take to ensure that all branches of the UK Government, including the Prime Minister's office, are fully engaged on that basis, regardless of the opportunities that arise to highlight political differences?

Des Browne: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have no interest in playing politics with my role of representing Scotland in the Cabinet or being the Minister who is responsible for ensuring that the devolution settlement works for the people of Scotland. I know from my conversations with him before I took the job that he has no interest in playing politics, either.
	We should all act against the words that we sometimes use, and I will live up to that. I intend to work co-operatively—I have done it, both across the Chamber and beyond the Chamber with other Governments, in every ministerial post that I have had. I am therefore certain sure that I can co-operate with other Scots politicians.

Digital Switchover

Alan Reid: What recent discussions he has had with the chief executive of Digital UK on digital switchover in Scotland.

David Cairns: I have met Mr. Ennals on various occasions and I look forward to meeting the recently appointed national manager for Scotland, Paul Hughes, in the near future.

Alan Reid: I congratulate the Minister on his promotion.
	It is important to ensure that, when we convert to digital, the area that the terrestrial signal covers improves. Will the Minister commit the Government to ensuring that at least every household that currently receives a terrestrial analogue signal can get a reliable digital signal after the switchover without having to pay a minimum of £150 for satellite?

David Cairns: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Not every household can get an analogue signal currently, although 98.5 per cent. of the population can. I have reminded the House on a number of occasions that that affects many of my constituents in Inverkip, who cannot get an analogue signal. About the same number—98.5 per cent.—will get a digital signal, so the vast majority of people who can get one signal will get the other one. I understand that, because of engineering and geographical constraints, it is not possible to say that every single person will get a digital signal, but 98.5 per cent. of people get analogue and the target is for 98.5 per cent. or above to get digital.

John Robertson: My hon. Friend will be aware that there are many elderly people in communities in Scotland who regard television not just as a little bit of joy in the corner, but as a necessity of life. Will he assure me that such people will be taken care of and be given the free boxes where they are entitled to them? Will he also ensure that companies that try to move the goalposts and to make money out of the situation will not be able to do so?

David Cairns: My hon. Friend makes a valid and important point. The Government have ensured that around £600 million is available as part of the BBC licence fee settlement, to ensure that vulnerable people—not just pensioners, but others—will receive the help and support that they need. We understand that for large numbers of people in society television is not just a source of entertainment but a vital source of information and companionship. As we move into the digital era, with more and more of the spectrum available, the range of services that people will be able to access through television will be much broader. It is vital that nobody is excluded from that because they do not have the financial means. The Government are committed to ensuring that that does not happen.

Plenary Joint Ministerial Committee

Pete Wishart: When he next expects the plenary joint ministerial committee to meet.

Des Browne: The Government are aware of calls for a meeting of the joint ministerial committee and will consider this proposal.

Pete Wishart: May I thank the Secretary of State for that helpful response? May I also commend him for the constructive and positive way in which he has engaged with the new Scottish Government? That contrasts sharply with his Back Benchers and with some of his still-in-denial colleagues in Edinburgh. It is five years since the plenary committee and most of the other joint ministerial committees met. Whereas that was perhaps excusable when Labour ruled the roost in all the devolved Administrations, it is unacceptable when we have a dynamic new SNP Government in Scotland and a Plaid Cymru Deputy First Minister in Wales. Does the Secretary of State accept that the joint ministerial committees have a vital role to play in improving dialogue, and will he ensure that they meet as early as possible?

Des Browne: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I have not noticed the dynamism of which he speaks. I have noticed a number of announcements that appeared to be comparatively easy hits, but the real business of government is yet to challenge the Scottish Executive. When it does, we will see just how dynamic they really are.
	That said, I have ministerial responsibilities and I will carry them out appropriately. I will work co-operatively with those who work in the best interests of the Scottish people. That also means not creating another level of process through meetings, if those meetings are unnecessary. The hon. Gentleman has pointed out that the MOU talks about the joint ministerial committee, but it also says that most contact
	"should be carried out on a bilateral or multi-lateral basis, between departments which deal on a day-to-day basis with the issues at stake."
	That is how things work now, and they work well.

Malcolm Bruce: If the plenary committee is to meet, does the Secretary of State agree that it will require the kind of approach to which he says he is committed, which is to recognise that devolution is a continuing and developing process that needs constructive engagement? On the other hand, Scottish Ministers from the Scottish Parliament need to recognise that they do not have a mandate for independence.

Des Browne: I am sure that the Executive in the Scottish Parliament know fine well that they do not have a mandate, because they can count. They know that about two thirds of the people in Scotland voted for parties that seek to maintain the Union, and for obvious reasons—because the Union serves the people of Scotland well and has done for some considerable time. I should point out, however, that the right hon. Gentleman slightly misrepresents my position. I am a devolver, but I am not an evolving devolver. I will ensure that the settlement, which I think is the right settlement, works properly for the people of Scotland, but let us test it.

Ministerial Responsibilities

Peter Bone: Who will undertake his ministerial responsibilities in his absence on other official duties; and if he will make a statement.

Des Browne: As Secretary of State for Scotland, I work closely with the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (David Cairns). As is normal practice, he will undertake duties on my behalf if I am absent on other official duties.

Peter Bone: How does the Secretary of State find enough hours in the day to fulfil his roles as Secretary of State for Scotland and Secretary of State for Defence—or is he Superman?

Des Browne: I am often tempted to give a one-word answer to certain questions at the Dispatch Box, but I will resist that temptation today. I would put myself forward either as Superman or as a time lord. I would also say to the hon. Gentleman that, in considering whether to take on these responsibilities, I thought long and hard about whether both jobs could be done. Given the level of ministerial support that I was being offered, and the knowledge that I had of the responsibilities involved at the Ministry of Defence, I took the view that both could be done. Time will tell whether I was right. I suspect that we should stop speculating about how this appears and just see whether there are issues in either Department that are not being dealt with properly.

Ben Wallace: In response to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), the Secretary of State said that he prided himself on always doing his jobs to the fullest. When it comes to the £50 billion of defence contracts due to be awarded over the next few years, which job will he be doing to the fullest in order to avoid any conflict of interest? Will he be lobbying for Scotland and the local defence industry, or for the Ministry of Defence and the armed forces? He cannot do both.

Des Browne: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Front Bench. Like me, he brings with him experience of defence issues, and I look forward to his questions both here and at Defence questions. I will give him the same answer that I give to this question every time: the decisions that I make as Secretary of State for Defence will be made in the best interests of the defence of the United Kingdom. I guarantee to do that, so there will be no conflict of interest between this and any other job that I have, whether it be as a constituency MP in Scotland, which I have been since I was elected, or as the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Employment Trends

Jim Devine: What recent assessment he has made of employment trends in Scotland.

David Cairns: Over the past five years, the labour market in Scotland has performed very strongly. The most recent figure, 2.53 million, marks a record high in the number of people employed.

Jim Devine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. Unemployment in my constituency stands at 2.4 per cent., but it will rise substantially as a result of the actions of members of the Scottish National party and Tory-controlled West Lothian council, who are scurrying about my constituency as we speak issuing redundancy notices to hundreds of their own members of staff who, this time last year, were working for the best-performing council in Britain. Will my hon. Friend join me in condemning the actions of the SNP and that Tory-controlled council, and tell the latter that it should go back to the negotiating table?

David Cairns: I am concerned at my hon. Friend's news. It will be of some comfort to his constituents to know that employment levels in his constituency are at record highs. However, it will be of little comfort to them or to people throughout the rest of Scotland to know that, if the plan goes ahead to replace the council tax with a local income tax capped at 3p in the pound, it will leave a black hole in local government finances of nearly £1 billion—

Angus Robertson: Jackanory!

David Cairns: The hon. Gentleman says "Jackanory", but it was actually the Institution for Fiscal Studies that demonstrated that. The only ways to plug that gap will be either to impose tax hikes on the hard-working families of Scotland or to implement massive cuts in local government services, which will mean hundreds more redundancies of the kind that my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Devine) has described. It is incumbent on those who advocate this policy to explain how they will fill that £1 billion black hole.

Stewart Hosie: The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Devine) suggests that redundancy notices are being sent around West Lothian. Is the Minister aware that the letters that have been sent out implement single status under the delegated powers given to West Lothian's chief executive by the outgoing Labour Administration. The letters make it perfectly clear that not one single redundancy is intended and that not one single redundancy notice has come out— [Interruption.] Given the unemployment trends, will the hon. Gentleman have a quiet word with his friends to stop the trend of raising the spectre of redundancy where none exists? Will he recognise that it is the intent of West Lothian council that employment should be maintained for all staff?

David Cairns: The hon. Gentleman had the opportunity to explain exactly how his party promises to plug that £1 billion black hole, but he failed to do so. He spoke about delegated powers to councils and also had the opportunity to explain his party's policy to remove from councils the right to raise local revenue— [Interruption.]

Angus Robertson: What has that to do with the Question on the Order Paper?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me deal with the proceedings of the House. If the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) is trying to tell me about chairmanship, he is in the wrong union.

Security

David Marshall: What discussions he has had with the Scottish Executive on security issues in Scotland; and if he will make a statement

Des Browne: The Scotland Office maintains regular contact with the Scottish Executive on security issues, including ministerial contact as required.

David Marshall: From time to time, the media expose gaps in our security systems, especially as far as obtaining security passes is concerned. Bearing it in mind that the terrorists at Glasgow airport appeared to have infiltrated the national health service, will the Secretary of State ensure that all future personnel requiring security clearance are subject to the most thorough background checks before passes are issued? Will he also liaise with the Scottish Executive to ensure that the police and security services carry out these checks where private companies or contractors are involved?

Des Browne: I trust that those who issue security passes in areas where danger to the public is possible—areas it is important to keep secure—recognise and live up to their responsibilities and their duty of care. That duty is shared not just by the UK Government, the Scottish Executive and their agents but by private security companies. I will take every opportunity I can to remind those who have the ability to influence that sort of practice that it is important that they live up to their duties.

COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Home Information Packs

James Brokenshire: How much her Department and its predecessors have spent on the home information packs programme.

Yvette Cooper: As we have set out before, over the past three or so years the Government have spent £19.5 million on the development and trials of energy performance certificates and home information packs. Energy certificates could save nearly 1 million tonnes of carbon a year.

James Brokenshire: The figures do not include the considerable sums spent by assessors, inspectors and businesses on qualifications, training and preparing for the introduction of the HIPs regime. Is it not time that the Government apologised to them for the inept way in which they have handled the issue and the consequent impact on those people's livelihoods?

Yvette Cooper: We are concerned about the position in which energy assessors find themselves. It was certainly a problem when the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors decided to take a judicial review against energy certificates. However, it applied to energy certificates, not HIPs. We are working with housing associations and local councils to bring forward some early energy certificates in the social rented sector so that we can also help to support some of the energy assessors in advance of 1 August when the programme begins.

Phyllis Starkey: Does the Minister share my astonishment and that of Milton Keynes association of home assessors that Tory MPs are trying to pin the blame for the debacle on the Government rather than on themselves? The Milton Keynes inspectors certainly know where the blame lies and were not surprised that none of the Tory MPs whom they contacted even bothered to meet them.

Yvette Cooper: I am sure that that will have been a disappointment to those involved at Milton Keynes. This issue is about providing useful energy information for people's homes. We already see such information on fridges and washing machines, for example, and it is about time we had it on our homes as well.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will the Minister admit that the introduction of HIPs was too big a step to take in one go and that she should now go back to the drawing board and see how to make energy performance certificates work? I have a suggestion for her. The European directive requires an energy performance certificate only every 10 years, so the Government should look further into that and similarly require such a certificate only once every 10 years—irrespective of how many times a house is sold within that period.

Yvette Cooper: I am slightly surprised at the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, because I think it important for people to have up-to-date information. If we want sellers and buyers to take decisions on the basis of information about their homes, the ability for them to do so if it is 10 years out of date—it could refer to fuel prices that are 10 years out of date—is much more limited. It is disappointing that he has decided to back the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors' view on the issue. We think it right that there should be more up-to-date information. We have said that we will consult further, but we are clear about the importance of recent information.

Clive Betts: I am sure that my hon. Friend will accept that there have been problems with the implementation of HIPs, but I am sure that she will also accept that the principle behind them—namely, that a prospective buyer should have as much information as possible before making an offer—is absolutely right. The major problem with our process of buying and selling houses in this country is the number of offers that are withdrawn because a prospective buyer finds out after making an offer information that they did not know about, but could have known about, before. Will she give a degree of certainty to those involved in the buying and selling process that the Government intend to pursue and go ahead with HIPs based on that principle?

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right that there is a series of problems with the current way in which homes are bought and sold. In fact, first-time buyers often face the greatest pressures. One of the advantages of the home information packs is that they will provide information for first-time buyers for free that previously they would have had to pay for. We are clear that HIPs and energy performance certificates need to go ahead on 1 August. There are wider issues as well around home buying and selling on which we want to work with a range of stakeholders to improve.

Bob Neill: May I take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister on her enlarged and elevated position on the Government Front Bench?

Stephen Pound: You can talk!

Bob Neill: She has risen to heights that I am not likely to achieve. That may owe something, of course, to her charm and abilities, but she must concede that it owes nothing to the fact that her Department spent £895,000 in three months marketing a policy, the centrepiece of which has been ditched, in which the latest research by Saga indicates that 50 per cent. of the population has no trust, and which the local authority inspectors who must enforce it say is unenforceable. Will she use her new Cabinet-rank status finally to lay this disaster of a policy to rest?

Yvette Cooper: May I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new post and congratulate him on his Front-Bench appointment— [Interruption.] His elevation, indeed. He should, however, think carefully about the position of his Front-Bench colleagues on this matter. They have said that they support measures to improve the environment, but the gap between the rhetoric and the reality is considerable. It is no good having warm words if they are not prepared to back measures to deliver warm homes.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: It is on days like these that I really regret that there are not more engineers in the House, simply because, as my hon. Friend will know, the measures on the energy performance certificates and HIPs represent the most significant action that we have taken on the domestic market in terms of energy conservation and improving standards. Will she assure me that having started this process we will continue to monitor it and roll it out completely over the housing stock of this country?

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right to point out the importance and potential benefits of the programme. It could not only save customers and consumers about £300 a year on their fuel bills, but also save a million tonnes of carbon a year. That is important. It is why we have made it clear that it needs to begin on 1 August and then to be rolled out. We will monitor it. We are setting up a new advisory group, working with stakeholders, including estate agents and  Which?, to ensure that the process is as smooth as possible and properly benefits consumers.

Energy Efficiency

Annette Brooke: What steps she is taking to promote improvement of the energy efficiency of existing homes.

Yvette Cooper: We have a range of programmes to support improvements in the energy efficiency of existing homes. As well as the energy performance certificates that are being introduced, we have the decent homes and Warm Front programmes, and are working with energy companies through the energy efficiency commitment. However, we recognise that we need to go further to improve the energy efficiency of existing homes.

Annette Brooke: I am sure the Minister agrees that it is most important to improve energy efficiency in existing housing stock. That would, after all, produce a win-win situation: warmer homes, lower fuel bills, and the tackling of carbon emissions from a significant source. When will the Government extend the code for sustainable homes to existing houses, as recommended by the Sustainable Development Commission?

Yvette Cooper: The code will apply to new homes. As the hon. Lady knows, we have set an ambitious time scale for all new homes to be zero-carbon within 10 years. As for her important point that we need to do more for existing homes, the energy efficiency of several million homes has already been improved, and the energy performance certificates will not only give people information about energy efficiency but suggest ways of cutting their carbon emissions and fuel bills—improving the lagging in their lofts, perhaps, or installing cavity wall insulation. We want that information to be linked with financial support, for instance through the energy companies.

Mark Lazarowicz: Is not one of the most important ways of encouraging householders to undertake energy efficiency measures the provision of reliable local advice? Will my right hon. Friend speak to her colleagues in other Departments about the possibility of extending the support of the Energy Saving Trust to one-stop shops and other ways of promoting such advice?

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right, but it is not just a question of information. Improving energy efficiency has to be relatively easy: householders who find it a real hassle to obtain quotations or find out how to get work done are much less likely to make the necessary improvements. We are working with the Energy Saving Trust to find ways of making it easier. We also see a potential for the private sector to step in. Some companies are considering "green mortgages", which are linked to advice and suppliers. We will need to go further, however.

Andrew Stunell: I, too, welcome the Minister to her extended role.
	I am sure the Minister knows that the 21 million homes in this country are the economy's biggest contributors to carbon dioxide emissions, and that at least 15 million of them will still be here in 2050. Has she decided when she might begin to implement the powers she has had since 2004 to require the upgrading of those homes? That would cut bills, improve comfort levels and tackle climate change. Can the Minister assure us that, in her new role, she will work hard with the Cabinet to persuade it to make progress on this vital aspect of climate change?

Yvette Cooper: It is good to see that the hon. Gentleman is still is his place. I know that he has a long history of strong involvement in this issue, and cares about it very much.
	We are considering a range of ways of helping people to improve the energy efficiency of their homes. As I have said, we have already helped several million householders with our existing programmes, and over the next few years the new energy certification programme involving energy companies is expected to help 3 or 4 million people to install cavity wall insulation. Those are substantial improvements.
	I think we should concentrate first on the incentives that we can introduce and on cost-effective improvements such as cavity wall and loft insulation, but technological improvements are also needed. We need to find more cost-effective ways of improving solid-wall insulation, for instance, if we are to make a real difference in the future. We hope that the zero-carbon new homes programme will create technological spin-offs that can be applied to existing homes as well.

David Taylor: Do we not already have legislation that could be used to implement tougher and bolder minimum standards for energy efficiency? House builders are failing to meet the existing minimum standards on a grand scale. Why does the Minister not give the building inspectorate greater sanctioning powers and resources to enforce the new higher standards?

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend makes an important point about enforcement. There were weaknesses in the enforcement of the 2002 building regulation improvements. Since then, we have enhanced the enforcement of the latest improvements in the building regulation standards of 2006 by putting in place a broad programme of training and other steps such as compulsory pressure testing. We need to go further, however, and we will over the next 10 years progressively set higher building regulation standards for energy efficiency in order to cut carbon emissions from homes; we are clear that improved enforcement must be a part of that programme.

Local Government (Cheshire)

Ann Winterton: What account she plans to take of public opinion in the restructuring of local government in Cheshire.

Hazel Blears: We are now assessing bids for unitary status against the criteria specified in our invitation. We will have regard to all information available, including all forms of public opinion, when measuring against the criterion that any change must have a broad cross-section of support from stakeholders and partners.

Ann Winterton: Why has the Department not consulted local people on plans to restructure local government, except for those representing bodies such as unelected quangos? Is the right hon. Lady aware that a recent Cheshire-wide MORI poll that showed that in the borough of Congleton there was a derisory 16 per cent. support for a single, county unitary authority, only 27 per cent. support for a two unitaries solution, but 55 per cent. support for improved working of the two-tier system? Will she agree to meet me to discuss the only viable solution, which is supported by the majority of my constituents and myself?

Hazel Blears: I am well aware of the hon. Lady's deserved reputation for assiduously ensuring that Ministers know of her constituents' views. We have during this entire process been very clear about the criteria that would be assessed. Local authorities have rightly conducted extensive consultations with their communities in a variety of ways, such as via telephone polls and face-to-face surveys. One criterion is that there should be support from a range of stakeholders as well as from the public, because if we are to achieve the desired efficiencies and joined-up working through the bids we must ensure that there is broad support.
	The hon. Lady asked for a meeting; we will reach decisions on these matters in the near future, and as I must be absolutely scrupulous about the information I receive, it would not be right to enter into lengthy discussions. If the hon. Lady wishes to send in some representations, I am sure that I will be able to receive them, but I must be extremely careful about the process that I adopt in reaching decisions on these issues.

Christine Russell: As another Member who represents a constituency in the historic county of Cheshire, may I invite my right hon. Friend to agree that Cheshire's current two-tier structure, where responsibility for planning, transport, housing and social care is split between the town hall and the county hall, is completely confusing to the Cheshire public?

Hazel Blears: I am very conscious of my hon. Friend's tremendous record in ensuring that her constituents' views are made clear to Ministers. She will know that the invitation for bids to restructure resulted in 26 bids, 16 of which are still being considered, and that there are two options for the Cheshire area. Restructuring must be about achieving increased efficiency and better joined-up working and getting results for the local community. I am well aware of the points my hon. Friend makes, but I am sure that she understands that I must consider all the representations from, and views of, the public before reaching final decisions.

Nicholas Winterton: This is almost a Cheshire love-in. May I say in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton) that a unitary system of local government would result in a democratic deficit? As our new Prime Minister has talked a tremendous amount about trusting the people and localism, should not the views of individuals carry as much weight in this consultation as those of the quangos and stakeholders who appear to be the main people and bodies being consulted by the Government? Does the Secretary of State agree that an improved two-tier system will maintain localism? Let me also say that I wish her well in her new post—bubbly though she is.

Hazel Blears: Again, I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's energy and vigour in representing his constituents. He will know, I hope, of my commitment to ensuring that local people have more of a say over their communities, and the challenge for me is to turn that into a reality, rather than simply warm words, and that is what I will endeavour to do. I am sure that he would accept that it is important that, as well as consulting the public, we are sure that all the partners that have to work with local government broadly support the proposals, because this is about getting better results from bringing people closer together at local level, whether that is the health service, the local police or local government. That is what can have the most impact on improving services for local people.

Eric Pickles: I had an opportunity yesterday to welcome the right hon. Lady to her post. I assure her that in the last 24 hours nothing has diminished my enthusiasm for her new role, which I say in the spirit of an Essex love-in.
	Will she confirm that in a letter to her Department the Chief Secretary to the Treasury described the unitary council bids, including the one from Cheshire, as a "waste of time", warned that costs "may overrun" and said that the Treasury
	"simply cannot afford to bear"
	the risk? I do not wish to rub the right hon. Lady's nose in it, but given that the Treasury thinks that it will be expensive, her predecessor thought that it was a distraction, and that ballots throughout England have rejected the unitary proposals, will she do the sensible thing and reject that ridiculous reorganisation? Will she also accept the hand of friendship from this side of the House, as we promise to work closely with the Government to achieve better two-tier working and value for money for the electorate?

Hazel Blears: I, too, had the opportunity to welcome the hon. Gentleman to his post yesterday. I am afraid that on this occasion I will have to resist his blandishments and his hand of friendship. He will know that the criteria by which these bids are to be judged clearly include affordability, as well as broad support from stakeholders across the community. We will therefore look very closely at the numbers. I would always expect the Treasury to be very concerned about affordability, as indeed are we, because if these proposals are to go ahead, they need to be practical, realistic and deliver real improvements for local people. I am not interested in simply moving the pieces around the board, but—like, I am sure, the hon. Gentleman—in genuine results, greater efficiency and higher quality services for local people. Those are the criteria by which the bids will be judged.

Planning White Paper

John Robertson: What recent discussions her Department has had with environmental groups on the planning White Paper.

John Healey: Ministers and officials from my Department have met environmental groups a number of times in the preparation of the White Paper and since publication. Other Departments have done the same. That is part of the priority that we are giving across Government to gathering views as part of the current consultation on our proposals.

John Robertson: My hon. Friend will be aware that environmental groups such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth have stated that the planning White Paper
	"opens the door to nuclear power stations and airports which will take the UK's fight against climate change backwards".
	Can my hon. Friend allay the fears of the public and confirm that those are unfounded remarks? Can he also confirm that the proposals will make climate change a priority, ensure security of energy supply in the future, and put an end to the delaying tactics that have stopped companies investing billions of pounds in this country?

John Healey: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance he seeks. The proposals are designed to reinforce, not reduce, the public's chance to have their say at every stage in the process. The proposals will ensure that the planning system in the future reinforces our efforts to tackle climate change and reduce emissions. It is the case that major projects, especially green and other energy projects, have often taken too long to get through the current planning system, and that is another reason why our reforms are so important.

Jacqui Lait: As this is a day for congratulations, I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box and hope that he enjoys this particularly difficult portfolio.
	The hon. Gentleman may not be aware, because his head was probably in his brief this morning, that the Secretary of State refused to rule out the abolition of green belt protection. Will he be advising the Government's new unelected planning quango to give the green light to green belt destruction? What assessment has he made of the effect of concreting over the green belt on climate change and flooding? Are not the Prime Minister's warm words on listening to communities, which my hon. Friends have mentioned, just empty rhetoric and spin from a controlling, centralising Administration?

John Healey: I am grateful to the hon. Lady at least for her opening comments; I knew that they were too good to last.
	Let me be clear: we remain completely committed to the principles of the green belt. The proposals in the White Paper on planning do not change our policy on the green belt.

Paul Truswell: This morning I sponsored an event at which a number of green non-governmental organisations expressed their concern about the future of public involvement, especially in respect of major infrastructure proposals. Does my hon. Friend understand the concern that giving councils too much discretion in how they engage the public will result in many doing the minimum necessary? Do we not need a statement of minimum rights of public involvement? Do we not need to ensure that council statements of community involvement are tested for their fitness?

John Healey: The White Paper proposals are right in looking to local councils to put in place, for the majority of their work, consultation and involvement arrangements that are suitable to the circumstances. On the fears of Friends of the Earth and other green groups about public consultation in relation to the proposed process for major projects, I say again that big projects will entail public consultation and will involve the public at every stage—in the preparation of new national policy statements and project proposals by developers, and with reinforced rights of access to inquiries, which may take place as part of the planning process.

Paul Holmes: I attended the meeting of a coalition of 14 environmental groups that has just been mentioned. Those groups do not believe the Minister's reassurances about the intent of the new planning legislation. What will Parliament's role be in deciding the new planning framework? Will there be a free vote, as councillors are legally obliged to have when sitting on planning committees, or a whipped vote?

John Healey: I would recommend that the green groups that somehow have doubts about our intent and the detail read the White Paper more carefully. We have invited comments on all the key proposals, and the Department has published detailed consultations on four other specific areas. I welcome the discussion with those green groups. At the close of the consultation in mid-August, we will come to a view of how to proceed with the proposals and with legislation for the future.

Linda Gilroy: I welcome the way in which the new guidance on planning and climate change associated with the White Paper will put local authorities at the heart of ensuring that new buildings are energy-efficient. Will my hon. Friend consider giving local authorities a similar role in relation to listing old buildings, particularly those from the 1950s and 1960s such as the civic centre in Plymouth, which, incomprehensibly, has been listed without any account being taken of its huge carbon footprint?

John Healey: I congratulate my hon. Friend on managing to use this question to raise that issue. Happily, my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing is sitting on the Front Bench. She will have heard my hon. Friend's comments, and I am sure that she will respond in due course.

Landlords

Gordon Prentice: How many local authorities in England are registering landlords in designated areas.

Iain Wright: The Department for Communities and Local Government has received and approved applications from four local authorities to establish areas for selective licensing of private rented housing. The applications were from Salford, Middlesbrough, Manchester and Gateshead.

Gordon Prentice: I welcome my friend to his important new post, where I am sure he will do well. Pendle has more than its fair share of rogue landlords, but the local authority inexplicably seems to be dragging its feet on selective licensing. Can we learn anything from the authorities he has just cited about their experience of bringing in selective licensing?

Iain Wright: I thank my hon. Friend for welcoming me to the Treasury Bench. He has been a strong and doughty champion of selective licensing in the face of a Lib Dem council in Pendle. I suggest that he continue in that strong role, fighting for a decent quality of life for residents by putting pressure on the local authority to ensure that there is selective licensing in due course.

Arson

Philip Hollobone: If the Minister with responsibility for the fire and rescue service will discuss with the Home Department the development of new techniques to preserve forensic evidence of criminal activity at scenes of fire.

Parmjit Dhanda: The fire and rescue service has a long history of working with the police at the scene of fires where criminal activity is suspected. Recent research commissioned by the Arson Control Forum, a Government-sponsored body, has focused on detection and investigation using forensic evidence. My Department and the Home Office are both represented on the forum and take a full part in its deliberations.

Philip Hollobone: Will the Minister consider finding time in his diary for a visit to the arson control taskforce based at Kettering fire station, so that he can be fully briefed on the exciting new initiatives to combat arson between the Northamptonshire fire and rescue service and the Northamptonshire police?

Parmjit Dhanda: I shall certainly consider the hon. Gentleman's invitation, but I am already well aware of some of the very good work in Northamptonshire, where the fire and rescue service works closely with the police, and through a recent campaign to remove abandoned vehicles, actually reduced the number of car fires by 60 per cent. That is very effective work and those involved locally should be congratulated on it.

Children, Schools and Families

Edward Balls: The new Department for Children, Schools and Families brings together for the first time ever in one place the responsibility for all policy across Government to promote the well-being of children and young people. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I start this statement with a proposition on which I believe every Member of the House and every parent and grandparent in our country can agree: every child matters, and we all have a responsibility to ensure that every child has the chance to develop their talents to the full.
	After decades of underperformance, we have turned the tide. We have rising standards—more than 58 per cent. of 15-year-olds achieved five or more good GCSEs in 2006, compared to only 45 per cent. in 1997. There is new investment, with 35,000 more teachers, 172,000 new classroom assistants, more than 1,100 new schools and more than 1,300 Sure Start children's centres. Teenage pregnancy rates are at a 20-year low. Re-offending rates among young people are down, and 600,000 children have been lifted out of poverty.
	Significant challenges remain, however, which require us to change and to renew. We know that parents want a greater focus on standards. We have far more to do to close the attainment gap between poorer children and their better-off peers. There are still too many young people not staying on in education and training after 16, and 2.8 million children still live in poverty, with many falling behind in learning before they even start school and more likely to end up in trouble as they grow up.
	In this statement today, I can announce immediate steps that we can take to reinforce our focus on standards in the classroom and personalised learning; to back teachers and improve discipline in and out of school; and to strengthen school leadership. We take those steps as we begin today a national consultation on how we can put the needs of children at the centre of our policy making, and build a stronger, fairer Britain, breaking down the barriers to opportunity so that every child and young person has the chance to make the most of their talents—not just a privileged few.
	First, on standards and personalised learning, a child who cannot read, cannot write or cannot master basic maths will never succeed in education. Our priority must be standards, not structures. So we will renew our focus on the things that really matter to parents and meet their rising aspirations, and that means getting the basics right.
	Since 1997, we have raised standards in literacy and numeracy in primary schools. We are now implementing the recommendations of the Rose report into early reading to ensure that all schools and nurseries teach phonics properly. And the "every child a reader" pilot is now helping 5,000 six-year-olds with significant literacy problems to learn to read.
	The next step is to raise our game in maths and build on the successful numeracy strategy that we launched nearly 10 years ago. I can tell the House that Sir Peter Williams, the chancellor of Leicester university and chair of the advisory committee on maths education, has agreed to lead a review of the teaching of maths. His review will look at effective methods of teaching and learning in primary schools and nurseries. He will advise us on how to develop pupils' deeper understanding of maths and on the development of our "every child counts" pilots, to help pupils falling behind in primary schools.
	Effective teaching is increasingly geared to the distinct needs and progress of individual children, so I want to see a greater focus on personalised learning, with appropriate support and schooling for gifted and talented children, those with special educational needs and those falling behind.
	We know that regular testing is essential for monitoring the progress of individual pupils, but there should be scope for schools to make well-informed judgments on when pupils should be tested. While we do not support streaming, which makes a blanket and often arbitrary judgment on children's intelligence and can ignore their individual talents, I strongly support setting for individual subjects, with judgments made by heads and teachers, according to the needs of their school.
	I can tell the House that, building on the £1 billion that we have already allocated to personalised learning in 2007-08 and following the recommendation of the Gilbert review, I am allocating £150 million over the next three years to expand the highly successful assessment for learning programme, to help further teachers build expertise in tracking individual pupil progress and in monitoring and mentoring achievement.
	Greater personalisation, assessment for learning and our successful social and emotional aspects of learning programme will benefit all children, including high achievers, but they will also help us to tackle underachievement and raise standards among disadvantaged children. As we expand our extended schools programme of out-of-hours provision in sport, music and drama to every school by 2010, we need to ensure that children from disadvantaged backgrounds and their parents do not miss out but have a chance to benefit from extra out-of-school tuition and after-school clubs. I can therefore tell the House that, over the next three years, we will now provide an additional £265 million to enable extended schools to do more to support disadvantaged children and young people. By year three, the funding will enable all schools to offer those children two hours per week of group activities in term time, plus 30 hours of additional activities over the holidays.
	To secure our economic future and promote opportunity for all, we must also do more to improve the post-16 staying-on rate. We will legislate over the coming year to raise the education leaving age to 18, but we also need a 14-to-19 curriculum that is relevant and engages young people in learning, offering them the skills that they need for future study and to succeed in the workplace. Details of the first five new 14-to-19 diplomas will be available within the month and be ready to be introduced into schools and colleges in September 2008.
	As we drive up standards, we must also do more to back teachers, to free them from unnecessary bureaucracy and promote discipline and let our professionals get on with the job in the classroom. We are committed to the current work force reform programme, developed with our social partners, to free up teachers' time to teach, and I have asked my Department to examine what more we can do to reduce unnecessary burdens for teachers and heads.
	Later this week, when we report on our review of the secondary curriculum for 11 to 16-year-olds, we will ensure a more focused curriculum that teaches the basics, but reduces prescription and puts more power in the hands of individuals schools and teachers. That will enable schools to personalise their teaching to meet the needs of different pupils, enabling us to place trust in the professional judgment of heads and teachers. To give teachers time to prepare for the new curriculum, I can announce that we will allow an extra inset day for all secondary schools in the school year 2007-08.
	Our "teach first" scheme is attracting and keeping high-performing graduates working as teachers in some of our most challenging inner-city schools. From September, it will be extended from London and Manchester to the west midlands, and, by 2009, to Liverpool, and Yorkshire and Humber. Building on the "transition to teaching" programme, we will consult on a new "teach next" programme to promote mid-career routes into teaching, especially for people from industry and the sciences.
	Teachers cannot teach effectively unless they also have the power to maintain discipline. Teachers now have, for the first time, new statutory powers to tackle disruptive behaviour, including legal rights to restrain violent pupils and confiscate property. Every child has the right to feel safe in school. We should expect good behaviour in all our schools and see it in all our schools. Ofsted has therefore agreed that it will shortly issue strong new guidance to inspectors, which will make it clear that behaviour by pupils that has a negative impact on learning is unacceptable. Repeated low-level disruption, as well as more serious isolated incidents of bad behaviour, should not be tolerated. By making that clear, Ofsted will, in effect, raise the bar for what is satisfactory behaviour and what is not. Ofsted's inspectors will focus on behaviour during inspections and where they find behaviour to be inadequate, they will conduct monitoring visits to make sure that it improves.
	As well as driving up standards and promoting discipline, I want us to do more to back strong and innovative school leadership. Specialist schools are driving up standards across the country. Trust schools will cement partnerships between schools, businesses and other local organisations and bring new dynamism and innovation to support strong school leadership. Our academies programme is driving radical transformation in weak and failing schools in disadvantaged communities. All academies now actively collaborate with schools and colleges in their area, just as all schools should co-operate with academies. Currently, all academies replacing local authority schools proceed with local authority endorsement at the feasibility stage, and at the funding agreement stage we already have a duty to consult local authorities and we take their concerns fully into account.
	Results in academies are improving faster than they are in other schools. Truancy rates are down. Increasingly, inner-city local authorities such as Hackney, Manchester, Birmingham and Sheffield are putting new academies at the centre of their local school strategies. The test of whether an organisation can be a potential sponsor should not be its bank balance, but whether it can demonstrate leadership, innovation, and commitment to act in the public interest; so, from today, I am abolishing the current requirement for universities and high-performing schools and colleges to provide £2 million before they can sponsor an academy. Many universities are already engaged with academies. I now want every university actively to engage with academies.
	At the heart of the innovation in the curriculum that academies make possible is flexibility, which we will maintain for all new academies—built on the platform of the core national curriculum that, as with most existing academies, all new academies will follow in English, maths, science, and information and communications technology. Academies have told me that they make the greatest impact on standards when they are a central part of the local community. They already have a duty to collaborate with all other schools in their area and are inspected by Ofsted against that. In addition, we have now removed their VAT costs on their buildings when their facilities are used by the wider community.
	It is my belief that, as we move towards our target of 200 academies by 2010—rising thereafter to 400—we should accelerate the pace of the academies programme over the next few years, with a much greater role for universities. This afternoon, the Minister with responsibility for schools and academies, Lord Adonis, who is making a statement in the other place, is announcing that funding agreements are being signed off for the following new academies: the Brunel academy in Bristol, the John Cabot academy in Gloucestershire, the Shireland collegiate academy in Sandwell, the George Salter collegiate academy in Sandwell, and St. Michael and All Angels Church of England Academy in Southwark. I can also tell the House that on the basis of today's announcement abolishing the £2 million entry fee, the following nine universities have expressed an interest in sponsoring new academies: University college London; Imperial college; the university of Nottingham; the university of Manchester; Queen Mary, university of London; Aston university; the university of Central England; the university of Wolverhampton; and the university of the West of England.

Ronnie Campbell: What about the north-east?

Edward Balls: My hon. Friend will have to encourage it.
	By backing strong leadership and teachers, we can focus our efforts not on structures, but on standards in the classroom, and on giving every child the best possible education. So that we can build a national consensus, engage universities, the wider public and the private sector, and drive forward our ambitions for children and young people's education, the Prime Minister and I will chair a new National Council for Educational Excellence. The council and its members will act as advocates and champions, so that we can transform expectations and aspirations for the education system, and mobilise every section of the community to get behind our national mission to become a world leader in education, and particularly our aspiration for every secondary school to have a business and university partner. Sir Michael Barber has agreed to act as senior adviser to the council, which will meet for the first time later this month.
	My Department's focus is on raising standards in schools, backing teachers and promoting strong school leadership, but schools cannot bear the whole burden. All the evidence shows that a child's life chances, and their chance of having a safe and happy childhood, are decisively shaped by their experiences in the first 22 months of life—by early-years education, family income, a supportive family environment, diet, and the opportunity to play and do sport. We need excellent universal services for all children and families, but there will always be some children and families who face additional challenges. We must tackle the causes of child poverty, youth crime, family breakdown and wasted potential, so that we can strengthen our society and deliver security and opportunity for all. We recognise the importance of early intervention and targeted support for children with special educational needs and disabled children. The new Department and the Ministry of Justice will have joint responsibility for youth justice, and it is vital that we spot problems in that area quickly, before they escalate into crises.
	We have a complex agenda. We will shortly publish our 10-year youth strategy, our national strategy on safeguarding, and our strategy on teenage parents, but I intend to use the opportunity offered by the new Department, and the remaining months of the spending review, to consult widely on how we can use all the levers at our disposal to promote strong communities and strengthen family life before we set detailed goals and the direction for the Department and children's policy for the next 10 years.
	In the coming weeks, we will launch a nationwide consultation to draw up a children's plan for our country. To help us to draw up the plan, over the next four months we will consult teachers, children's professionals, universities, colleges, the voluntary sector, parents, and children and young people. To enable us to do so, Ministers in my Department will co-chair three working groups alongside a leading practitioner. The three groups will consider the range of education and wider services affecting children and young people. There will be one group for nought to seven-year-olds, one on eight to 13-year-olds and another on those aged 14 to 19. The groups will involve experts from schools, colleges, children's services, health partners, the criminal justice system, the wider public, and the voluntary and private sectors. I plan to be able to report the results of that consultation and set out the emerging children's plan in the autumn.
	That is a challenging agenda, but getting it right is critical to the future of our country. Every child has talent, and through the measures that I have set out today and the consultation that we will now begin, we will ensure that every child gets the best start in life and the support they need to make the most of their talents. I commend the statement to the House.

Michael Gove: First, may I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment? During his brief period on the Back Benches, he campaigned vigorously on child poverty and helped to secure improved respite care for the parents of disabled children. I place on record our admiration for that work, and express the hope that we can continue to work with him on those issues in a constructive, bipartisan way. May I also welcome what I take to be the good intentions that he brings to his office? Specifically, I welcome his commitment to use "all the levers" at his disposal to strengthen family life. Given that earlier today the Minister for the Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Edward Miliband), said that the Government were indifferent on the family, may I welcome that early U-turn?
	I also applaud the Secretary of State's new commitment to excellence, diversity and discipline in our schools, which is another embrace of Conservative policy. However, that prompts the inevitable question why, after 10 years of a Prime Minister who promised a relentless focus on "Education, education, education", is such an ambitious agenda still required?
	May I specifically ask how the new strategy on numeracy announced today fits in with the existing strategies on numeracy that have already been announced? When he was Chancellor, the Prime Minister announced a series of maths strategies, starting in 1998 with an intensive numeracy strategy. Next, we had a new national numeracy strategy from the then Chancellor. Then we had "Maths year 2000". In 2002, we had the then Chancellor's response to the Roberts review on maths teaching. In 2005, we had a new strategy that prioritised the small group teaching of maths. In every year in which performance was measured, however, the Government failed to achieve their own targets on improving numeracy. Is not today's announcement just a rehash of policies already announced by the Prime Minister over the past 10 years and already found to be failing? No wonder Alastair Campbell wrote in his diary:
	"Ed Balls—no good on message—all he does is repeat what Gordon Brown has said".
	I welcome the general principles behind what the Secretary of State has said about more personalised learning. Ensuring that teaching is tailored to the needs of each child is valuable, but may I ask why, if the Government value giving close attention to individual pupils, class sizes for the youngest are actually increasing? In Labour's last election manifesto, Ministers claimed that they had abolished infant class sizes of more than 30, but that is simply not the case. The latest figures show that the number of pupils aged five, six or seven in classes of more than 30 has risen by 50 per cent. in the past two years and trebled since 2002. What are the Government doing to redeem that broken promise?
	Truly personalised learning means teaching individuals according to their needs, stretching the most talented and nurturing the weakest. I agreed with the Secretary of State when he said that setting by ability is central to any successful approach. May I ask why only about 40 per cent. of lessons in secondary schools are set by ability? In 1997, as part of their very first drive for more personalised learning, the Government pledged to increase the number of children set by ability, but in 2005 they watered down their commitment to setting by no longer recording which classes were actually set. May I ask why that was allowed to happen? And what steps will be taken now to support and incentivise teaching by ability?
	I welcome the emphasis that the Secretary of State has placed on discipline in our schools. New statutory powers are welcome, but many teachers are still asking why the Government refuse to give them all the powers and protection that they need to enforce discipline. Specifically, will he commit to giving heads the final say over exclusions, so that authority is clear in schools and teachers can feel supported in their drive to maintain discipline? Is it not the case that occasions when heads have had their decisions on exclusions overridden has risen by 20 per cent.? How can that be defended?
	I also welcome the Secretary of State's commitment to more academies—academies build on the city technology colleges introduced by the last Conservative Government, which enjoy bipartisan support. I particularly welcome his announcement of a relaxation of the barriers to involvement in setting up new academies. That policy were first championed by Conservative Members. May I ask why he has apparently decided to undermine the independence of new academies by placing them increasingly under the influence of local authorities, when the original vision was of liberated new schools championing excellence? Will he reassure us that he is not abandoning the existing cross-party consensus on academies and moving back to the left to appease the reactionaries who want no change in our schools?
	In an interview with the  New Statesman last year, the Secretary of State admitted that he was personally critical of his own Government's handling of the Education Act and their promise of greater freedom for schools. He said that his top priority was
	"getting back to clear dividing lines between us and the Conservatives on education policy".
	His top priority was neither working for pupils nor championing excellence, but entrenching division for partisan purposes. Will he show that he will rise to the challenge of his new post by demonstrating that he now recognises that what happens in the classroom is too important to be reduced to partisan positioning? He has an historic opportunity with his new Department to get the fundamentals right for children, schools and families, and I hope that he will work with us and others to put pragmatic reform at the heart of his mission.

Edward Balls: May I start by thanking the hon. Gentleman for his kind words and welcoming him to his new brief in the shadow Cabinet? Like him, I am very much looking forward to our debates in the coming weeks and months. I know how much he enjoys debating in this House and I hope that we will be able to have some good debates. Although there will be disagreements, I hope that in some areas critical to our country's future we will be able, together, to shape a consensus on how we can give every child the best start in life, how we can promote good schools and how we can tackle the causes of crime. In that spirit, I welcome what he said about the importance of standards and what he said about personalised learning, and I welcome the support that he has given for the measures that we have taken on discipline.
	Let me answer a few of the hon. Gentleman's questions. It is right that we need to make more progress on mathematics. We have benefited from the Rose review on reading, and we want to ensure that we do the same with the maths review. I remind him, however, that in 1997, 62 per cent. of young people reached level 4 in maths, while today that number is 76 per cent. Over 100,000 more young people are now meeting the required standard in maths. We have made progress, but I want to go faster. I welcome his support in making progress.
	On reducing school class sizes, it is right to say that some infants are still in class sizes of over 30. That applies to about 1.4 per cent. of all infant classes, compared with 29 per cent. in 1997. However, there is further to go, and I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support in that context too.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the importance of setting. Setting is very important indeed. It has been increasing in core subjects, and I should like it to go up further. I welcome his support for setting, which I hope he supports rather than grammar school streaming. It was interesting, from my point of view, to hear no mention of that in his response.
	I should like to follow up the hon. Gentleman's point about academies by reassuring him that we are not going backwards on academies; in fact, today we have announced the largest number of academies in one day that there has ever been, and in one stroke we have more than doubled the number of universities that are supporting academies. It is right to say, however, that I was not the first person to make this proposal. The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) is not on the Front Bench, but I should congratulate him on his appointment to a new job as shadow Minister for universities. In fact, when I arrived in my Department his May speech to the CBI was included in my briefing pack, because officials had never seen such a devastating attack on grammar schools and rebuttal of the case for selection. He even convinced the Leader of the Opposition to support him—at least for 48 hours. My advice to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) is this: next time the Leader of the Opposition declares a clause IV moment in education, be afraid—very afraid.
	I am very keen to debate education policy with the hon. Gentleman. I have been looking back at some of the contributions that he has made in recent years. Let me give one example from  The Times, where he wrote:
	"Every parent in Britain should be given a scholarship for their child, worth broadly the amount currently wasted by the State on their schooling. This scholarship could then be used to buy a place at schools, which would have to compete for parents' money just as vigorously as airlines now compete for their holiday custom."
	I want consensus, but there will be no consensus on the Labour Benches on the case for school vouchers. There will be no consensus on a public spending cuts guarantee for schooling, nor on an approach to tax incentives for marriage that would help a few but stigmatise large numbers of children in our society who, through no fault of their own, would be worse off but also treated as second class because of a death in the family or a break-up of their family. Let us have consensus not on the basis that some children matter but that every child matters. If we want to raise standards, let us do so in all schools by putting resources in place to deliver that. In my view, only this side of the House is prepared to will the means to that end, which is why I commend this statement to the House.

Barry Sheerman: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on this statement. It is not so much a breath of fresh air as a gust of it; he has covered so many topics. He must be congratulated for concentrating on standards, and on assessment—bringing back the skills, which many teachers have left behind, of assessing students in a thorough way. I also congratulate him on his emphasis on a more flexible curriculum and less prescription.
	As my right hon. Friend would expect of those of us deeply interested in education, I have found two little quibbles. First, I ask him please not to put too much emphasis on just one form of phonics. The Select Committee on Education and Skills found and recommended that all programmes of teaching people to read actually work. Secondly, we have a wonderful academies programme, and he must be congratulated. Many of us have been working for a long time on the link between universities, businesses and those who care and know about education. That part of his statement will be a milestone, and I congratulate him.

Edward Balls: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments, and for his leadership on these matters over a number of years. I look forward with some trepidation to my first appearance before his Select Committee if, as I hope, he is confirmed in his current position, and I look forward to his advice and guidance in the coming years.
	My hon. Friend is right to make sure that we are careful about the way in which we approach the issue of reading. The Rose review provides us with the opportunity to implement this programme, and so does the "every child a reader" scheme. Every child learns in a different way. We need to give teachers the tools to do the job, but also to allow them to ensure that they teach each child, which is what our commitment to personalisation does.
	I also say to my hon. Friend that academies have an important role to play as part of our mainstream education policy. Our ambition is that every school should be a specialist school, a trust school or an academy, and I pay tribute to the work that he and many Labour Members have done in recent years to encourage universities to engage in our academies programme. Today, we have more than doubled the number of universities that are sponsoring academies, and over time I hope that we can ensure that every university does so.

David Laws: I genuinely welcome the new Secretary of State to his post. He has been an important individual in front of and behind the scenes in this Government for a long time, and we are pleased that the Prime Minister—the former Chancellor—has put him into this job because we assume that that indicates it is a priority for the Government. We also welcome the fact that other elements of children's policy will be part of the Department's responsibilities, and we hope to find common ground on many issues in future.
	I want to raise some questions about several points in the statement, starting with funding. The Secretary of State announced a couple of new initiatives on funding, which we will check, if he does not mind me saying so, to ensure that they are genuinely new. I was disappointed, given that the Prime Minister was there to support him today, that he did not mention what is surely one of the Government's flagship policies on education funding, which was announced by his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in March 2006 and reannounced, as is the practice, in March 2007: bringing the level of state education funding up to the private school level. We later found out that the announcement actually meant that by about 2022, the level of state funding would be up to the private level in 2005—a less impressive pledge. May we have confirmation today of when that objective will be met, and whether it will be as far into the future as most commentators think? Would it not be more sensible to deliver that objective through mechanisms such as a pupil premium, but starting with those children from the most deprived backgrounds, targeting pupils by setting up a premium that follows them through their educational experience?
	Secondly, I should like to clarify the position on academies. The Secretary of State put a positive gloss, as we might have expected, on academies policy. I have become accustomed to expecting that reports in the  Financial Times will be reasonably accurate. We read this morning, presumably through a briefing from the Department, that there will be a huge shift in tone on academies and no more reform for its own sake. We also found out that, under a new regime, councils will have to support proposals for academies at all stages of the process, from the initial expression of interest to the implementation stage, for the Secretary of State to be comfortable. Briefing behind the scenes appears to have occurred, and suggests that he will make it more difficult for academies to be approved. Today's statement did not give that impression. Will he clarify whether there is to be any change in the requirements for local government approval for academies? Lest we are suspicious of the figure of 400 academies, will he tell us the financial provision that the Department's budget has made for academies for the next five or six years?
	The Secretary of State said much about personalisation. As a newcomer to the portfolio, I assume that that is the current jargon in education policy, which I imagine many teachers believe that they have been trying to implement in the past 30, 40, 50 or 60 years. Is not there a tension between a personalisation approach, which tries to help individual pupils, and the perception from today's statement that much of the personalisation is being handed down from the centre? That appears to contradict the statement that he made in an interview with Polly Toynbee only a few weeks ago, when he said that the Department cannot direct everything from the centre. What flexibility will there be in the funds that are passed down for personalisation so that schools and teachers can use the money sensibly, and teachers are not treated like children?

Edward Balls: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his questions and for—I think—his support. I hope that, in time, we may be able to forge a rather more progressive consensus, perhaps between the two of us. He should be relaxed—I am not about to offer him a job.

David Laws: I am not about to take one.

Edward Balls: Given that the hon. Gentleman is a man of some means, were he to want to sponsor an academy, I would be happy to take an application. However, unfortunately, he does not qualify as a high performing academic institution, so the £2 million contribution would still apply to him.
	Let me answer the hon. Gentleman's questions. It is our commitment, which the Conservative party will not match, to increase state spending per pupil to the current amount of private spending per pupil. Parents would expect and want us to do that. Our spending review provides for making progress towards that goal. It is our ambition to increase spending to that extent, but we cannot do that if we have to cut spending to pay for either a £21 billion tax-cutting package or capital gains tax reforms. It is important to ensure a disciplined approach to spending. The new initiatives that I announced today mean new money from our Department's spending review settlement up to 2011.
	The hon. Gentleman made an important point about the pupil's premium. My hon. Friend the Minister for Schools and Learners has already made it clear that, in our funding settlement for schools, we will continue to target deprivation but try to do that in a more sophisticated way using tax credit data, in which the hon. Gentleman will have some interest.
	I said that the best teachers practise personalisation. We want to give more teachers the training and resources to do so, but it is up to individual teachers in the classroom and individual schools. Throughout the country, the best schools—those in our "every child a reader" pilot, which have made the fastest progress at primary level—have established school-based, personalised learning and tracking projects. The best trusts are those that share information between schools on the way in which to effect local personalisation. We do not, therefore, have a centralising agenda.
	Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked me about my statement on academies. Just to make it absolutely clear, I said that all academies now actively collaborate with schools and colleges. All academies replacing local authorities proceed with local authority endorsement at the feasibility stage now, and there is already a duty to consult local authorities at the funding agreement stage. I have made my announcement to the House first, not the newspapers. The newspapers did not get that right and I am happy to take this opportunity to correct them.

Ronnie Campbell: I might well ask my right hon. Friend where the universities are in the north-east of England, because he did not answer that point. Will he take a keen look at the situation in Blyth, where we have just approved an academy school, which is not more than a mile away from the brand new Blyth community college, which was built to the tune of £14 million? I have heard that there will be surplus places and redundancies among teachers when the two schools are up and running, so will he ensure that there is parity between pupils at the academy and those at the community college and that they receive the same amount of money per head?

Edward Balls: I know that my hon. Friend has strong views on that issue and that he has already discussed it with the Minister for Schools and Learners in an Adjournment debate. I am happy to visit with him, and I hope that we can reassure my hon. Friend that what is being done is fair, in terms of pupil funding and capital funding, and has the best interests of his constituency at heart, particularly the poor or more disadvantaged members. That is my commitment to him and that is what we shall deliver.

John Bercow: I warmly congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment. In view of his long-standing interest in the issue of children with disabilities, I hope very much that good progress can be made in the national interest. Given that local authorities are in a position of virtual omnipotence, as the bodies that assess and decide, and pay for and provide the service that children with special educational needs receive, and given that in a truly compelling report issued in the summer of last year the Select Committee on Education and Skills argued strongly for the separation of assessment on the one hand and provision on the other, will the Secretary of State, as a new broom sweeping clean, look again at the issue? His hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) and the Committee were right; the Government were dismissive, sneering and wrong.

Edward Balls: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's contribution to these debates over many a year. I had the opportunity to work closely with him on our review of services for disabled children. I can reassure him that our Department is not only the "every child matters" Department, but the "every disabled child matters" Department. We shall take seriously the issues of disability and special educational needs, on which he has some expertise. My hon. Friend the Minister for Schools and Learners is planning to meet him shortly to discuss such matters.
	The hon. Gentleman's specific point is one that we shall consider as we consult on our children's plan. I want to ensure that schools and children's services departments work closely together. I shall, for the first time, examine the issue that he raised. I do not promise to reconsider the policy, but I promise him that I shall consider the point carefully.

David Blunkett: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment and on his statement, as well as on his emphasis on leadership and standards in the classroom and on his reiteration of the objectives of academies, albeit not those set out by the Conservatives, but those in the Government Green Paper in the spring of 2001. In the plan for children and the three strands, and in the allocation of £265 million for children who are particularly disadvantaged, will he and his Ministers take account of the fact that, in developing standards, it is aspiration from the family and overcoming dysfunctionality in the family that are so crucial? Will he emphasise family learning and overcoming the biggest obstacle of all to children, which is a family who have no expectation of success in the future?

Edward Balls: My right hon. Friend is quite right. His leadership on the issue has been very important and has meant that we have gone from having a small number of city technology colleges when we came into government to the expanding programme of academies that we have put in place and are strengthening today.
	My right hon. Friend is right that we should emphasise the causes of poor standards in schools, one of which is a lack of effective family support. It is part of our extended schools programme and of the Department's wider programme to address these issues. In order to ensure that every child matters, this cannot simply be about children; it must also be about support for parents and grandparents. Supporting the family means supporting all generations of the family. We need to ensure that busy parents are given the support that they need to balance work and family life. For those parents who want parenting classes or whose children get into difficulty, we will provide more targeted support.

Nicholas Winterton: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new responsibilities. I have an excellent special school in my constituency, Park Lane school. Further to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow), will the Secretary of State look at the funding of Cheshire county council in respect of its ability to provide the best and most appropriate education for those with learning difficulties, particularly autistic children? It appears that the authority is no longer prepared to fund places for such children out of county because of the cost, even though those schools provide the best and most appropriate education.

Edward Balls: I am happy to look at that issue. I have a specialist school in my constituency called Kingsland school, which also does a great job in providing support for primary years children with severe learning or physical disabilities. There is a place for specialist schools, as well as for allowing children to have support in mainstream schools, and we need to provide choice for parents. In my view, the authorities have a responsibility to ensure that the funding is in place. I am told by the Minister for Schools and Learners, my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) that funding has been put in place, but if there are difficulties in accessing that funding, I would be happy to discuss that in detail with the hon. Gentleman.

Karen Buck: Children from less well-off families are simply not able to buy into the music, drama, arts and culture that are so educationally enriching and that are enjoyed by many better-off children. I therefore welcome the additional money that my right hon. Friend has committed to extended schools. May I remind him, however, that the most deprived schools in my constituency receive only £10 per child per year for the full range of such activities? Even the money that he has announced today will probably provide only a three or fourfold increase on that amount. Will he assure me that he will look hard at how to direct resources to the most deprived schools in the most deprived communities, so that those children can receive the kind of wide-ranging cultural support for their education that clearly produces results?

Edward Balls: I know that my hon. Friend has worked hard to champion the interests of the most disadvantaged children in her constituency. Our commitment is clear: we want all schools to be able to offer people—parents and children—extended school facilities, and we need to ensure that the funding is in place to enable that to happen, and to provide the necessary advice and support. Disadvantaged children and their parents should not be prevented from accessing those services because of a problem with resources. That is why I have made announcements today to ensure that there is more money in place to deliver on the commitments that I know my hon. Friend wants for her constituents and that I want for all our constituents in this country.

Edward Vaizey: I welcome the Secretary of State to his new position. I wonder whether he could help me with one particular point in his statement. Last year, the Government said that they were putting additional money into maths education, yet today he has announced a review into how maths is taught. Is that not the wrong way round?

Edward Balls: I think that I answered that question when it was put to me by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove). We have been improving our maths teaching over the past decade, and that is reflected in the test results, which have been rising year on year. However, over the past two or three years, we have not seen the same pace of progress that we saw in the earlier years. We want to keep up the momentum. In the consultations that my colleagues and I have had, it has been put to us that there is a case for looking at the way in which we teach mathematics, in a similar way to what happened in the Rose review. The right way to do that is to get experts to come and advise us, and that is what we are doing. When we implement the report, we will again be able to accelerate the pace of the progress that we have been making over the past decade.

Tony Lloyd: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's emphasis on disadvantaged children in our education system. He is right to point out that the most disturbing gap in education is between those who do well, who are generally from affluent family backgrounds, and those who do badly and are from poorer backgrounds. He has announced a couple of initiatives, and the £265 million will be very welcome. Will he guarantee that, as we look at the structure of schools, we will ensure that children and young people from the most disadvantaged families are not crowded out by the often sharper elbows of those from the more advantaged families?

Edward Balls: I understand my hon. Friend's point. That is exactly what the new and fair admissions code is designed to deliver. I would point out that since 1998, primary schools in the areas of highest poverty have improved at nearly twice the rate of schools in the most affluent areas, so we have made progress. Furthermore, academies admit a higher proportion of pupils with special educational needs and those entitled to receive free school meals than the proportion living in the relevant postcode area. I firmly believe that academies, if done properly—they are being done properly and that will continue—can help support my hon. Friend's agenda. They are there to turn round the education of disadvantaged kids who are falling behind in the toughest areas—and we intend to ensure that they do precisely that.

Angela Watkinson: I have an excellent special school in my constituency—the Ravensbourne, which caters for children on the autistic spectrum, among others. Those children receive a very good education, but the families have a great need for proper and appropriate respite care because every day is a challenge to them. It is important to enable the parents to continue to support their children and any siblings in the family. Just to be able to undertake ordinary everyday activities, the parents need the occasional break. Does the Secretary of State realise that additional funding is needed for appropriate respite care for autistic children?

Edward Balls: The hon. Lady is quite right to point to the particular challenges that autistic children and their families face. Only recently, I visited the Treehouse special school in north London, which caters for autistic children. While there, I witnessed the powerful and intense support that teachers provide to those children during the day. I was marvelling at the fact that the parents then have to do it all on their own from 3.30 in the afternoon until 9 the next morning. The burden placed on those parents is very substantial, and they do it all willingly because they love their children, but we have a responsibility to ensure that they get the short breaks they need, which can often make the difference between coping and crisis. The hon. Lady thus makes a powerful point, which we take very seriously.

Frank Field: I congratulate the Secretary of State on achieving his new position and on his statement, particularly the part relating to academies. I draw the House's attention to discussions going on between the Department and a number of cathedral choir schools, which wish to transform themselves into academies so that not just a few children, but large numbers of them, receive a brilliant musical education. Those schools can then act as centres of excellence for other state schools in the area. Does my right hon. Friend accept that if he dropped the £2 million entry fee for this group of schools wanting to transfer, it might not be too long before he could announce to the House the very biggest increase of academies ever in this Government's history?

Edward Balls: If I were able to do that, I would be pleased and I would look forward to such a day with great pride. I speak as someone who has never sung in a choir, but who has often attended such services, and I know that the professionalism and discipline of the children is something to behold. If some of the teaching and learning from which they benefit could be spread more widely in the community, it would be a very positive contribution. These are schools that would undoubtedly benefit from any relaxation of the £2 million limit. I look forward to seeing them make representations, perhaps through my right hon. Friend, as soon as possible.

Jacqui Lait: I congratulate the Secretary of State on introducing an education system that sounds remarkably similar to the one I went through in Scotland in the 1950s. May I commend to him the Bromley children's project? It involves parents early on and it is responsible for reducing the number of exclusions per year from 50 to two in just one primary school. Will the right hon. Gentleman look further into the funding of local education authorities that are debt free, but unable to spend the credits that they receive from the Department? How does he reconcile raising the school leaving age to 18 with the ability of the same children to get married at 16?

Edward Balls: I congratulate the hon. Lady on the detail of her questions. On the first two, I offer her a meeting so that I can take up the issues with the Minister for Schools and Learners. If a return to focusing on standards in the classroom is a return to the 1950s, I welcome that. It obviously did the hon. Lady no harm at all and so much the better if we can ensure that such opportunities are spread to more children in our communities.
	On the hon. Lady's last point, we are not raising the school leaving age to 18; we are raising the education leaving age to 18. We are hoping that that will be taken up in further education colleges through apprenticeships and by people in work. The important thing is to ensure that no children are leaving school at 16 with no ongoing education and that people in work are trained between 16 and 18. That is what we will legislate to deliver.

Richard Burden: May I welcome what my right hon. Friend said about extending schools, in particular his recognition of the need to expand provision to allow children from more disadvantaged families to benefit more greatly? When he is thinking about targeting that, will he think specifically about the situation in areas of deprivation that are close to areas of relative affluence—where the proximity of affluent areas can inhibit the building up of the very community infrastructure that is necessary for things such as extended schools to work effectively? Will he discuss with his colleagues, perhaps in the Department for Communities and Local Government, how we can ensure that extra support is targeted on deprivation, not on whether someone who is rather more affluent lives a few streets away?

Edward Balls: I understand my hon. Friend's point. We are looking at that in the resource funding arrangements for schools and in our capital building programme. Our vision is not for schools to be open between 9 in the morning and 3.30 in the afternoon, but for them genuinely to be at the centre of their communities. We need to ensure in our academies programme, trust schools programme and in "building schools for the future" that we build schools with facilities that can be open in the evenings and at weekends, that we provide exactly the kind of resource infrastructure that can serve the constituency that he mentions, and that that is at the centre of our thinking as we take forward our capital programmes.

Peter Bone: In his statement, the Secretary of State says that we have now turned the tide, with more than 1,100 new schools. That is good news, but can he name any constituency where a secondary school has been demolished and there are now fewer secondary schools than when the Conservatives were in power? To help him out, I can tell him that the constituency begins with W.

Edward Balls: I think that I am grateful for that question. This is the first time in the past year that I have been able to come to the Dispatch Box in a question and answer session with the hon. Gentleman without having to worry about whether I know the youth unemployment figure for his constituency compared with 1997. He will remember the particular exchange, as we all do.
	On the hon. Gentleman's particular point, I will need to look at that in more detail. If he wants to have a discussion about it, I shall be very happy to do so.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr. Speaker: Order. I can try to call every hon. Member who is standing, but they must ask the Minister one supplementary question only.

Louise Ellman: I welcome my right hon. Friend's support for skills training. Does it mean that all young people in Liverpool who require skills training will be able to receive it? Will he give special attention to those who leave school without education, qualifications and a job?

Edward Balls: I will give special attention to those young people. In my experience—this is why the Department is so important—if we are to focus on the skills needs of young people at 16, 17, 18 and 19, we have to start focusing on their ambitions and those of their parents when they are much younger, at eight, nine, 10, 11 and 12. As we work on our new children's plan, I want to ensure that we take the FE sector and its expertise and apply that to our thinking in primary schools and the early years of secondary schools. If we are to fulfil the ambition that my hon. Friend sets out, we need to start raising the levels of ambition much earlier than we are at the moment.

Michael Penning: May I draw the Secretary of State's attention to his comments on legislating in the coming year so that pupils will not be able to leave education until they are 18? What discussion has he had with the Ministry of Defence and his colleagues there, because 35 per cent. of armed forces recruits who join the ranks are under 18? They are a vital part of our armed forces. If this legislation goes through, surely they will not be able to join.

Edward Balls: I think the answer is that the Ministry of Defence, as an employer, will have a responsibility, as it does very well at the moment, to ensure that while in work people have effective training between the ages of 16 and 18. As I said, our commitment is to ensure that young people are either in school or college full-time, or in part-time education while they are at work. That training can happen on the job or in college. My guess is that the Ministry of Defence does it pretty well.

Ann Coffey: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, particularly the news of extra funds for extended schooling and personalised learning, which I think is key to overcoming disadvantage. Will he consider distributing those funds directly to schools on the basis of the deprivation statistics, to ensure that they benefit disadvantaged young people irrespective of the council areas in which they live?

Edward Balls: We will need to look at that in detail, but we intend to give schools and parents power to decide how the money is spent, and to ensure that young people who receive free school meals or qualify on the basis of the deprivation statistics have a personal entitlement to take up extended school opportunities. That is our intention, but we will need to work out the funding arrangements.

Graham Brady: I understand that following the reorganisation of the Secretary of State's Department, the Learning and Skills Council will lose responsibility for new school sixth forms. Will it be transferred back to local education authorities, or will it go to the Department?

Edward Balls: Responsibility for the funding of 14-to-19 education, whether in trust schools, specialist schools, academies or grammar schools—which will reassure the hon. Gentleman—will reside with our Department, but will be routed through local authorities rather than the Learning and Skills Council. The new Department will take responsibility for training those over 19.

Philip Hollobone: Would the Secretary of State be kind enough to examine the funding arrangements for Southfield School for Girls in Kettering? The Department has designated it a specialist sports college, but it is still struggling to fund the provision of a sports hall. Surely there is no point in giving schools specialist status unless such schools are properly funded.

Edward Balls: I do not want to stray too much into the details of the school when I do not have them in front of me, but it strikes me as odd that a specialist sports school should be without a sports hall, and I should be happy to look into the matter in more detail. If the hon. Gentleman writes to me setting out the position, I will find out what advice we can give him.

Helen Jones: I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said today, but may I ask him to look closely, during his review of children's services, at the way in which parents of children with special needs are being treated? Will he ensure that, following assessment, there is a point of access to the health and educational support that they need? As parents of children suffering from Asperger's syndrome have discovered in my constituency, too often they are bounced from pillar to post and have to undergo assessments again and again.

Edward Balls: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the key findings of our review of disabled children's services was that parents need to find ways of navigating the system. One of the best ways is to establish a lead professional, along with parents' forums, who can act as an advocate. In drawing up our children's plan we will ensure that children's services, schools and health officials are involved at local level, in order to deal effectively with complexity that may at times be inevitable but is still quite distressing for parents.

Adrian Bailey: I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcements, particularly the announcement of funding agreements for the two new academies in Sandwell. I am sure that they will enhance educational achievement in the borough. However, may I draw his attention to a body of young people whose needs often go unrecognised? The education of young carers is often impaired by their caring responsibilities for near relatives, which cause them to miss out on the educational opportunities that are available to other pupils. Will my right hon. Friend undertake to help to identify and support those people?

Edward Balls: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When preparing for my new brief I was shocked to learn of the 150,000 young people in England and Wales, currently under the age of 18, who are caring for a sick or disabled relative, often a parent. Social services departments and education authorities in particular need to ensure that those young people are supported so that they are not excessively burdened, their childhood is not strangled by their responsibilities, and they are given educational priority.
	I also congratulate my hon. Friend on the two academies. I recently met the leader of his council—a Labour leader who is a great champion of the academies programme as he knows what it can do for disadvantaged kids in his area.

Angela Smith: I welcome my right hon. Friend's recognition of the crucial role parents play in giving their children the best possible start in life, and his commitment to addressing that. Does he agree that every parent matters, regardless of whether they are married, single, divorced or cohabiting?

Edward Balls: I completely agree: every child and every parent matters. The idea that we should stigmatise some children or parents for their circumstances, which are often no fault of their own, is a return to a "back to basics" agenda that we thought was in the past. My hon. Friend will have seen that the Prime Minister was present on the Front Bench but that, unfortunately, the Leader of the Opposition was unable to be present as he was at a press conference explaining the comment of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) that most families—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State will not do that, and when I stand he will sit down. I call Andrew Miller.

Andrew Miller: I welcome the appointment of Sir Peter Williams to undertake the review of how mathematics is taught in the primary and nursery sectors. May I ask that he be invited to examine whether there are any correlations in respect of schools that teach maths as merely being of utility and those that teach it with excitement, flair and drive, which is undoubtedly how to succeed in engaging young people in science and mathematics?

Edward Balls: I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and I also thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your guidance, which I will, of course, take on board. I apologise to you for what I did. Let me say in answer to the question that I will make sure that the Williams review addresses the issue my hon. Friend raises.

Andy Reed: I welcome the statement, particularly the part on the personalisation of services, but is my right hon. Friend aware that Leicestershire is still the lowest funded education authority and that we would need increased funding in order to achieve parity with many other authorities? I know from personal experience of my son's school and others in my constituency that although we want to deliver the excellence that my right hon. Friend has talked about, that will become a reality only if there are more changes in how the funding formula works for places such as Leicestershire.

Edward Balls: The F40 group has made good representations on behalf of my hon. Friend's area and councils in a similar position. I will make sure that we look into this matter. My hon. Friend the Minister for Schools and Learners is addressing it, and he will take seriously the issues that have been raised.

Barry Gardiner: I was delighted to welcome the Secretary of State when he brought the Prime Minister to Preston Manor high school in my constituency earlier today. Did his officials make him aware beforehand that had he been visiting 11 years ago, he would have found that not only that school but every school in my constituency had a pass rate of less than 50 per cent. for GCSE pupils achieving A* to C grades, and that last year the pass rate for Preston Manor and every other school in my constituency was higher than 74 per cent.? Will he pay tribute to the inspirational leadership of the head teachers and the work of the teaching staff in my constituency for that achievement?

Edward Balls: I am certainly happy to pay tribute to the head teacher I met today and all the staff and pupils of that school, who are clearly engaged with and excited about learning. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work in championing the interests of all the schools in his borough. As he will know, in 1997 23 schools in London boroughs were achieving a pass rate of less than 46 per cent. for pupils gaining five or more good GCSEs; in 2006, there was only one such school. That has been achieved because of leadership such as that we witnessed at the school we visited today and the championing of such causes by Members.

Fiona Mactaggart: I welcome my right hon. Friend to his new role and the existence of the new Department. I especially welcomed in his statement the recognition that the future of a child's life can be determined in the first 22 months. As well as setting up the three working groups, the first of which will deal with a child's life up to seven, can he look at our investment across each stage and perhaps continue the rebalancing of investment to the earliest years in order to avoid the growth of inequality, which happens even before a child arrives at school?

Edward Balls: I will certainly ensure that I look at that particular issue. One of the key priorities for our Department is to ensure that, as we integrate services for the youngest children and as we make the most of our new network of Sure Start children's centres, those children and parents who most need help are accessing the services in those centres. It is a priority for me to ensure that we use that network of support to target the disadvantaged to whom my hon. Friend refers, so that we can try to address the issues before they become much harder to deal with in later life.

Point of Order

Stephen O'Brien: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On 6 June there was a debate in Opposition time on the Government's failures on the NHS IT programme. In answer to our charges of incompetence, the then Minister of State— now the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint)—and the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), both prayed in aid the National Audit Office report on the NHS IT system. They used various quotations and  Hansard accurately recorded what the Ministers said. It has now been reported that the Ministers have recognised that the words that they used were not contained in the NAO report. Phrases such as "a positive report", "much needed" and "well managed" were not in the report. The Ministers are now apparently seeking to correct the record without coming back to the House, which has a correct record of what was said, to apologise for the inaccuracies and the mistaken utterances that they made to seek to defend their now threadbare position. I seek your guidance as editor of the  Official Report as well as the person responsible for the conduct of business in this House.

Mr. Speaker: The best thing that I can do is investigate the matter and come back to the hon. Gentleman. I will look into the matter and I thank him for raising it.

Alcohol (Harm Reduction)

Sandra Gidley: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the regulation of the pricing and labelling of alcohol products; to further restrict alcohol advertising; to make provision in relation to public order and alcohol-related offences; and for connected purposes.
	This month a smoking ban has been introduced in England and people have been asking what the next big public health challenge is. I, for one, believe that we urgently need to turn our attention to the growing effect that misuse and abuse of alcohol is having on our society. In many ways, that is a more difficult problem to tackle than smoking. With smoking the message is quite clear. A person's health is affected whatever the level of smoking. Smoking can kill and it affects others. With alcohol, the messages are less clear. People who drink regular small amounts live longer than teetotallers. Red wine is regarded as having some health benefits and the good news for cider drinkers is that it was recently discovered to be high in antioxidants.
	I probably need to declare an interest here because I am actually a member of the all-party groups on wine, beer and cider, and at the end of the week I will be visiting one of my local pubs. I fully acknowledge that for many people alcohol is a source of enjoyment rather than being a problem. But it is becoming apparent that there is a growing problem due to the misuse of alcohol.
	The facts speak for themselves. In 2005-06, there were more than 19,000 diagnoses of episodes of alcohol-related cirrhosis of the liver in England—an increase of 178 per cent. in the past nine years. As if that were not bad enough the figures show that not only is the incidence of liver disease increasing among the middle aged but younger people are being diagnosed more frequently. There has also been a well documented increase in young women binge drinking—there are more under-18 female hospital admissions than male, and the prevalence shows a strong link to the increase in the rate of binge drinking. Hospital admissions of patients with alcohol poisoning have almost doubled over the past 10 years.
	The escalating direct health problems are bad enough, but high alcohol intake is often linked with unprotected teenage sex and hardly a person in the country has escaped the impact of alcohol-related antisocial behaviour. So tackling the alcohol abuse problem will not only improve the health of the nation, but will help reduce levels of antisocial behaviour. Three years ago, the cost to the nation of alcohol misuse was estimated as £20 billion. It is time for action.
	Sadly, I am not saying anything new. In 2004, the Prime Minister's strategy unit launched the alcohol harm reduction strategy for England. It was absolutely appropriate that there was top-level attention from the then Prime Minister, who wrote the introduction to the strategy. The strategy has seen disappointingly little progress, so my hope for the future is that the current Prime Minister succeeds and turns warm words into positive action. I do not think that the Minister with responsibility for public health has been announced yet, but we have a clue in that the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Bristol, South (Dawn Primarolo), is sitting on the Front Bench, and I welcome her to her new job. Simple measures can be implemented that, when taken as a package, will help to tackle the problem.
	First, I want to talk about pricing. In a ten-minute Bill, I am not allowed to consider tax-raising powers, but the more general issue of pricing and display of alcohol needs to be tackled. Currently, alcoholic drinks are frequently used by supermarkets as a loss leader, and that practice must stop. There is clear evidence to show that the cheaper beer is, the higher the rate of binge drinking. Many alcoholic drinks are relatively less expensive than they were 10 years ago, which means that children are increasingly able to afford to buy alcohol.
	A report from the Academy of Medical Sciences in 2004 reviewed the evidence on the relationship between price and consumption, showing that increased consumption was closely related to the rise in affordability. In particular, heavy drinkers and under-age drinkers are more affected than other drinkers by the price of alcohol. For that reason, it would appear to make sense to place a duty on retailers to prove that they are not selling alcoholic drinks as loss leaders.
	I am not a lone voice in that regard. The Royal College of Physicians, in its evidence to the Competition Commission in respect of the groceries market, made one major recommendation:
	"Supermarkets should not sell alcohol below cost price and preventive measures should be introduced if necessary. The result of below-cost selling is likely to be a rise in consumption, leading to more alcohol-related disease, social disorder and other social problems. It is highly irresponsible for supermarkets to sell alcohol below cost or at a deep discount, knowing the likely consequences. If supermarkets wish to make a positive contribution to the health of the nation and be more socially responsible, they could switch to discounting healthy foods."
	Alcohol advertising also needs to be tackled. The 2004 strategy called for a review of the code, and Ofcom introduced new restrictions in October 2005, but those are self-regulated. Adverts are now not supposed to link sexual success with a brand. The rules on portrayal of daring, aggressive, irresponsible or antisocial behaviour were tightened, and adverts should not have a strong appeal to those under 18. Things have improved.
	A recent analysis of those changes by the advertising industry concluded—surprise, surprise—that the new code of advertising was working. Unsurprisingly, it believes that no further regulation is necessary. That belief appears to be based, however, on an assumption that there are low levels of public concern and that most adults do not think that banning advertising would reduce under-age drinking. No direct assessment has been made of the impact of advertising on young drinkers. The industry also claims that a pre-watershed ban is not necessary because current restrictions mean that alcohol advertisements are not placed in or around programmes watched by a high proportion of under 18s. That misses the point entirely, because while some programmes with high viewing figures may have a higher percentage of adult viewers, their overall viewing figures are so high that the number of under-18s watching and being influenced is also high.
	Alcohol Concern reviewed alcohol adverts during a seven-day period in December 2006. It demonstrated that more alcohol adverts were shown before the watershed than after and that the majority of supermarket alcohol-related adverts were shown before the watershed. Evidence from other countries demonstrates a clear link between advertising and alcohol consumption. Manufacturers would not waste their money on advertising if it did not increase sales.
	Despite the fact that there is a complete ban on advertising tobacco products, I am not yet convinced that a complete ban on alcohol advertising is necessary. We should commence with the following measures. First, there should be no alcohol advertising before the watershed or in cinemas unless the film has an over-18 rating. Secondly, we need to take a close look at sponsorship of sports events and music festivals to ensure that advertising linked with those events does not glamorise and thereby increase drinking.
	Improvements are also needed in education and labelling. In the 2004 strategy, the Government stated that they would completely overhaul the way they presented messages about alcohol and they announced a programme to improve work in schools. The success or failure of that programme is as yet difficult to assess, but it is increasingly apparent that alcohol education programmes in schools do not address the binge-drinking culture. However, when binge-drinking spills over into antisocial behaviour and young drinkers come into contact with the criminal justice system, we have an opportunity to get clear messages across to young people who may be developing problem drinking habits or behaviours. That opportunity is currently being wasted.
	I propose that arrest referral schemes be introduced in every borough command unit as there is growing evidence that working with offenders positively and proactively can reduce reoffending owing to alcohol-related offences. The Government have introduced alcohol awareness campaigns, but again it is a little too early to assess their impact. However, the Government have resisted legislating on alcohol labelling, although they have encouraged the alcohol industry in that direction. The Bill addresses that deficit and would set a date by which all alcohol products would be labelled with clear information about the number of units in a drink, a reminder of the different safe limits for men and women and a warning about the use of alcohol in pregnancy. That would help people to make informed choices about which drinks they choose.
	Those measures, combined with a hard-hitting advertising and awareness campaign, would go some way towards tackling the alcohol-related problems that blight the lives of many.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Sandra Gidley, Mr. David Amess, Bob Russell, Norman Lamb, Kelvin Hopkins, Dr. John Pugh, Dr. Doug Naysmith, Lynda Waltho and Chris Bryant.

Alcohol (Harm Reduction)

Sandra Gidley accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for the regulation of the pricing and labelling of alcohol products; to further restrict alcohol advertising; to make provision in relation to public order and alcohol-related offences; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 19 October, and to be printed [Bill 142].

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) (NO. 2) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.
	 Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time,  put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read a Second time.
	 Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time,  put forthwith, and agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Tony McNulty: I beg to move,
	That the draft Terrorism Act 2006 (Disapplication of Section 25) Order 2007, which was laid before this House on 11th June, be approved.
	I want to make two points at the outset. First, Members will know that as a result of our deliberations on the Terrorism Act 2006 a compromise position was reached, whereby section 25 was inserted so that there was something to go back to, given the agreed premise that we annually review the 28-day period, which is rather complicated in terms of the law. Secondly, Members will understand that my right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (John Reid), the then Home Secretary, announced on 7 June that a terrorism Bill would be introduced in the autumn and that we are keen to consult on the 28-day issue. I shall ensure that the consultation paper we want to circulate on that issue is put into the public domain for all interested parties before the summer recess. When we say that we want full consultation, that is absolutely what we mean. I realise the House will say that it is for us to prove that we are serious about consultation and I entirely accept that point—unfair and misguided though it may be—but we are very serious.

Douglas Hogg: The Minister says that he will consult on 28 days. Does he actually mean that he will propose a 90-day detention period and that he wants to consult on that?

Tony McNulty: No, with the greatest respect, I do not in the sense that I think it fair and reasonable to start from the premise that we will not suggest going from 28 days back down to 14 days, for reasons that I will come on to. However, the consultation period will include an array of options—the status quo and beyond 28 days—but things are not as simple as the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggests: simply keeping 28 days, or going back to the debate on 90 days.

Chris Bryant: Will one of the options that the Minister presents allow the results of interrogation after charge to be admissible evidence in court more regularly?

Tony McNulty: The strict response to my hon. Friend's question is no in the context of the consultation on 28 days, but he will remember that, when we announced that a subsequent Bill would be introduced in November—I suspect, post-Queen's Speech, but that is a matter for business managers—one of the other elements in that Bill was post-charge questioning. So his point about post-charge questioning will certainly be part of the broader review of and consultation on the Bill.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Tony McNulty: I will defer to the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman in the first instance, but I will certainly allow other hon. Members to intervene.

Dominic Grieve: I am grateful to the Minister for his comments, because he will appreciate that these two issues have a very clear linkage. One of the arguments in favour of the extension from 14 to 28 days, which we are renewing today, has been the length of time needed to question. Indeed, if post-charge questioning were introduced, it would clearly be at least an argument to be put in the balance when considering either whether the 28-day provision had to be extended, for which there is no evidence at the moment, or indeed whether the period should be reduced. Of course, the reason we are having this debate is that, subject to the order, the detention period is, in fact, 14 days.

Tony McNulty: That is an entirely fair point, but I would go further and say that I take the legitimacy of the point that how post-charge questioning relates to 28 or 14 days is important, which is why we will go down the suggested route of a Privy Council review of intercept evidence. How pre-charge detention for 28 days or otherwise, intercept evidence and post-charge questioning interplay is, again, a factor that needs to be taken account of in the consultation. Indeed, as we have made clear in the past, the raft of legislation about acts preparatory to terrorism will equally come into play as well. It is incumbent on the whole House to consider how all those elements hang together. So, in the broad sense, I agree with the hon. Gentleman.

David Winnick: The Home Affairs Committee unanimously found recently that there was no justification to extend the 28-day provision, but will my hon. Friend also bear very much in mind the fact that in recognition of the acute terrorist threat that we face—no one is likely to dispute that—both Houses agreed to 14 days without any Division whatsoever? Likewise, the increase to 28 days carried in this House was also carried in the Lords—again, without any Division. We have a consensus—28 days—and we should retain it unless there is compelling evidence that there is a justification to go beyond it.

Tony McNulty: That is an accurate reflection of what has gone before in respect of the 14 and 28-day provisions and a perfectly fair viewpoint, as I would expect from my hon. Friend, on going beyond 28 days. It is the job of myself and other Ministers to try to persuade people, if we come to this view, that we need to go beyond 28 days. It is certainly incumbent on the House to treat the matter very seriously in all respects, as I know that it will, but I would question in part my hon. Friend's point about substantial evidence. By its very nature, the only evidence that we have is of the rather limited period—the past year or so—when the 28-day provision has been in action and what we learn every time an alleged plot is disrupted. Given the traditional understanding of the word "evidence", I am not sure whether it is useful in that respect.

Patrick Mercer: Will the Minister confirm that the current 28-day period is likely to be extant until such time as further evidence is adduced? He seems to suggest that we might simply move to 90 days, almost as some sort of safety net. There is no evidence for that. Will he reassure me on that?

Tony McNulty: On the hon. Gentleman's latter point, I am not suggesting that. On his former point, I do not want to pre-empt what the House does with the order. If the House does not pass the order today, 28 days cannot be extant, because we will be back to 14 days. I apologise if I have not made myself clear. We think that, at the very least, the case has been made. Certainly the alleged plots since that time have substantiated the position on 28 days. We need to take a collective view, hopefully based on consensus, on whether, in utter extremis—I know that we use 28 days in extremis—there should be some way of going beyond 28 days when required.
	There are currently six cases that went to full term in relation to the 28-day period. I will come on to discuss that in some detail. In three cases there were subsequent charges; in three there were not. This relates partly to my clumsy point about evidence. The issue is as much about looking at where we are going over the next couple of years, in terms of the threat, as it is about assessing where we have come from. That is why I do not like the use of the word "evidence" in that narrow literal sense. I am not saying—in a hidden way or otherwise—that it is all about 90 days at this stage and the consultation is a big cover for that. We want a serious and sustained consultation on whether 28 days will suffice, whether we need some sort of mechanism portal, or whatever else, to go beyond that in extremis, as I said to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, or whether we need to settle on something beyond 28 days, which may or may not be the 90-day limit that was discussed at the time.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: The difficulty that we face in the House is that, in a free society, if we agree to changes in the law, they must not only be justified—they must be supported by people who are democrats and who want to live in a free society. If we accept restrictions that, in themselves, do the job of the terrorists, we may be playing the wrong game. I hope that the Minister will not get too hung up on the suggestion that there is no evidence. Many of us feel that if we are to combat this terror, we have to look at the situation far more widely and intelligence has to be important. It is not just a question of what we do when we have people in custody.

Tony McNulty: I absolutely accept my hon. Friend's point and not least her argument that we need to look far beyond this order—whether we have 14 days or 28 days—and consider matters in the widest context, including legislation, intelligence and all other areas, in terms of how we go forwards. I also accept her point that our starting premise must be what we all accept and agree is normality in terms of the rule of law and the statutes that govern this country. We depart from that certainly not in haste, or at leisure, but only in extremis and in very difficult and daunting circumstances.

John Bercow: On pre-trial detention without charge, my objection has never been to the motives of Ministers, but rather to the draconian measure that I believe they have proposed. I understand why the hon. Gentleman is quizzical about the term "evidence", but he said himself that he would need to persuade the House. I put it to him that he would at least need to show some very clear disbenefit to the country, constituting some sort of threat to our security, in the absence of the extension he favours, if he were to persuade us. One way in which he might proceed would be to agree to provide Privy Council briefings to Privy Councillors—I would not benefit because I am not a Privy Councillor, but many are and would—as an earnest of good intent and of collective approaches by the Government.

Tony McNulty: I am not one either, so that is at least something I share with the hon. Gentleman. He makes a fair point. As I have said, what we want to do, in terms of putting the documents out before the summer, is have the widest possible audience, rather than doing that on Privy Councillor terms. We can get a view that is part evidence-based, part speculation, and partly based on making some assumptions, to the extent that we can, about the nature of the threat that is to come. We cannot be trapped in a dimension that says we are fighting the threat that we knew a year ago, or two or three years ago. The situation is finely balanced. That is why, in part, I hesitate about "evidence" meaning things clearly one way or the other. Invariably, in the course of our discussions, there will at least in part be some speculation when it comes to where, taking into account the services, the police and all other opinions, we think that the likely threat will be. That is my only cavil about evidence; I am not saying, "Sorry, mate, I don't have the evidence, but let's do it anyway."

William Cash: As the Minister knows, for many years I have been strongly in favour of an extension beyond 28 days in the interests of preserving the security of the people. The Government, and certainly the former Home Secretary, understand that the real issue is the interaction with the Human Rights Act 1998, around which the control order legislation works. Does the Minister accept that that is one of the fundamental problems? It has led to a situation in which the Minister and the Government cannot achieve what they want, and in which the subject is deprived of their liberty. Does he not agree that the simplest answer is to ensure that the alleged terrorists receive habeas corpus, have a fair trial and are subject to due process, and to get rid of this absurd legislation, which was passed in the middle of the night, when sunset turned into dark?

Tony McNulty: I am blessed to have such an ally. The hon. Gentleman's points are well made and consistently made, but they are wrong. At the core of his suggestion is the idea that the police are dilatory in their activities and keep people for 14 or 28 days, or whatever the cut-off point is, simply because it is convenient for them. The police—along with the security services, the Government and all right-thinking people—want to bring those who are detained to court in the swiftest fashion and at the earliest opportunity, and with the strongest possible case. We have had discussions about the interplay with the European convention on human rights, and I simply do not accept the hon. Gentleman's premise. He swoops on me in corridors when I am trying to go for a quiet cup of tea; he creeps up on me all the time, and we have very interesting discussions. There is an issue with parts of the judiciary and how they interpret the convention, but I do not think that the convention is at fault.

David Heath: Perhaps we can dispose of one of the arguments that I have heard adduced by people outside the House in support of an extension to the 28 days. It is argued that if a suicide bomber survives an attempted bombing but is injured, and so is not available for questioning, the extension would be necessary. Is it not the case that if we introduced post-charge questioning, those circumstances could not possibly apply, because someone who was injured while planting a bomb clearly has a prima facie charge against them?

Nicholas Clegg: They would have to be arrested first.

Tony McNulty: My answer to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) would have to be "Maybe." I do not know the specifics, and we could talk about the example that he gave in some detail, but as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg)—another non-Privy Councillor—suggests, the person would have to be arrested first. That is a moot point. Of course, if someone was so badly injured that rational discourse and discussion, and taking part in a police investigation, was beyond them, the issue of the timing of the arrest and the starting of the clock would come into play, as is fair.
	The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome makes a fair point about the interaction between post-charge questioning and the issue of where we go on the question of the 28 days, and I am serious in saying that we want debate on it. I hope that I do not need to rehearse many of the substantial points on why we think that 28 days is necessary as a minimum. Everyone knows the arguments about encrypted messages, the greater internationalisation of threats, and the increasingly complex nature of the terrorist networks. We have to investigate what internationalisation means in terms of cryptography, languages and computers. These things are becoming ever more complex. We think that a period of at least 28 days is sufficient.
	I remind the House that we are talking about the annual renewal of the order. The timing has not worked; it would have been preferable by far if we were in a position to move on to the Bill now, but reviews were carried out on the Home Office's functions and on the legislation. No matter what our speed, I do not think that we could have had that dispatched in time; we would still have needed a review.
	I repeat that we want a substantive debate. There is no ruse to introduce a Bill on the first possible day after the summer to which everyone had better agree or else. When I was on Harrow council, I used to go on about consensus all the time. A Conservative councillor said, "It's all very well your talking about consensus, but by consensus you mean everyone agreeing with you." That is, of course, not the case, because I am, at root, a consensual politician. It behoves us all to get to a place where we agree on the necessary legislative framework to counter the threat, and the process that we are about to undertake is part of that.
	Everything that hon. Members have said about how intercept evidence, post-charge questioning and other elements of the Bill fit with pre-charge detention is entirely fair. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) about starting from the premise of our rule of law and departing from that only in extremis given the nature of the threat is fair. I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House understand the seriousness of the terrorist threat and the importance of implementing the right measures to counter it, which includes the international dimension. Government Members and Opposition Members, including all Front Benchers, are clear that we must strike the right balance between protecting the rights of the detainee and ensuring that an investigation proceeds properly and effectively and that the police can deal with the complexities of investigations into modern terrorism.
	This debate almost involves sparring before we get to the wider debate about how the order fits with all the other elements of a subsequent terrorism Bill. I am happy to meet Front Benchers and individuals who want to discuss 28-day detention or any other aspect of the Bill during the consultation. We are trying to arrange sessions with the Home Affairs Committee and the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and I repeat that we are serious about that consultation.
	I hope that all hon. Members understand why this order is necessary. If it is not passed, we will return to a 14-day limit on 25 July. We can have a substantive debate about what the order does and what a 28-day limit means in the context of the other elements of the proposed terrorism Bill in a proper, reflective and discursive way, as befits this House.

Dominic Grieve: I welcome the way in which the Minister has presented his arguments to the House this afternoon. I tell him now that we will not vote against the renewal motion.
	It is important to bear in mind what we are debating. When the Prime Minister made a statement on the matter, there was a telling moment when the right hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) stood up and described 90-day detention almost in terms of a mantra to which people should sign up in order to show that they are tough on terrorism. We must get away from that sort of attitude. This House must clearly be robust in doing our best to protect the security of people in our country, but we must balance that with winning an argument about values, where our adherence to civil liberties is one of our principal weapons in defeating those who want to harm us. If we start signing up to easy solutions and, worse still, start dividing this House on the basis that if one does not sign up to a particular concept—for example, 90-day pre-charge detention—one is on the other side of the argument or, worse still, on the other side in terms of fighting terrorism, we will get off to a very bad start. I hope that we can avoid that, and the Minister's words this afternoon reassured me that we are moving in the right direction.
	It is important to remember what this afternoon's debate is about. We keep on talking about extending 28-day pre-charge detention to, possibly, up to 90 days, but this debate highlights the fact that the current norm—indeed, it is a norm only for terrorist offences—is 14 days, and that the extension to 28 days, on which this House reached a consensus, is already an exceptional power that we need to scrutinise frequently because it is such a dramatic departure from normal practice. We have moved radically away from accepted practices that view 24 or 48 hours at a time as being long periods to detain somebody before charge. We should always bear that in mind, because otherwise we will fail to understand why our forebears thought that short periods of detention pre-charge were all that was acceptable, given that at such time a person is merely under suspicion and charge should usually follow rapidly after the police have had the opportunity to confirm or disprove in their own minds the suspicion that they may have.

William Cash: Does my hon. Friend accept that at least two former Attorney-Generals and the reviewer, Lord Carlile, had suggested that the 28-day period could be extended? Furthermore, does he accept that, however, much we try, it is impossible to achieve anything without recognising that this provision, which pivots on the human rights legislation, will not be able to achieve its objective unless we deal with the fundamental problem that lies in that human rights legislation?

Dominic Grieve: I am afraid that I find myself constrained to disagree with my hon. Friend on both counts. On the first count, various arguments have been advanced as to the need to go beyond 28 days detention, but the previous Attorney-General made it absolutely clear in a number of statements—most recently only a few months ago—that he had seen no evidence to justify doing so. He argued that very strongly at a time, I might add, when the then Home Secretary was making noises to the contrary, as was highlighted in this House. As the then Home Secretary never provided any evidence to back up his assertions, I rather preferred the Attorney-General's view.
	As to my hon. Friend's second point, although there are serious issues surrounding the European convention on human rights and the Human Rights Act 1998—he has highlighted them on many occasions and they are legitimate topics for debate—I am not sure where they would bite in the context of this debate. I acknowledge that if the Government were to move to 90-day detention, that might be challenged under the Human Rights Act, but the Government are currently at 28 days, and there has never been any attempt to challenge that on the basis of its being in breach of the HRA. Indeed, as my hon. Friend will know, under exceptional circumstances of national emergency it is at least technically possible, well within the scope of the HRA and the ECHR, to declare a state of emergency and, if necessary, to bring in detention without trial. I am not recommending that to the Minister, but it has happened in the past. In the case of Northern Ireland, it was a huge mistake. Nevertheless, it is possible to do it without in any way falling foul of the HRA or the ECHR. Although important issues may be debated in this area—my hon. Friend specialises in it and has spoken on it often—it is not really a live issue in the context of this debate.

John Bercow: My hon. Friend has rightly emphasised how unprecedented and extraordinary the 28-day provision is. In order that we might underline the rarity of the circumstances that could justify its use, could he tell the House whether I am right in thinking that the Government have accepted that the number of cases that they have identified to which the 28-day provision could apply could be counted on the fingers of one hand?

Dominic Grieve: My hon. Friend makes a good point and, indeed, I had a list of questions that I was going to ask the Minister in order to seek clarification, of which his was one. My understanding is that the number of occasions when it has been necessary to go to 28 days, in the context of the total number of people detained, is very few. The Minister will doubtless be able to help us on that in his winding-up speech, and I have a list of questions for him. Anecdotally, it has been suggested to me that, although the police found it useful to go to the 28-day limit, it was not strictly necessary to do so because their investigations and inquiries had been effectively completed within the preceding 24 or 48-hour period. The Minister's information on that will certainly be valuable.
	I would like to make one other point. We compare ourselves, rightly, with other common law jurisdictions. In the context of current events, we can read a great deal about what is happening in Australia, which appears to be taking some important steps to apprehend suspected terrorists. I understand that in Australia the outer limit of detention remains at 14 days—the Minister may be able to confirm that—which was achieved only after a rigorous debate in which many people suggested that 14 days was already a long time. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but in the United States, which is seen as a country that is pretty draconian in dealing with terrorism, 10 days is the maximum period for which a person may be detained.
	We have to compare such figures because these are common law jurisdictions operating under many of the same handicaps for the state, or at least protection for the detained person, and it is worth bearing in mind that they have felt able to confine themselves to those periods, even though when we first debated this matter the police and the Minister made a persuasive case for going beyond 14 days, however reluctant I was to do so and however much I might wish to return to the 14-day figure if possible in the future.
	I turn to the questions that I feel it useful to raise before the order is renewed. First, it would be useful to know how the provision is working in practice—how many times has it had to be used? Linked to that, I would be pleased if the Minister told the House how any detention beyond 14 days has operated in practice. Perhaps I can just flag up some of the areas that are of interest to me, which might be of interest to the House. As a result of what we did, we asked the Government to introduce a completely new set of Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 rules. It is pretty obvious that rules designed to cover the detention of a person for what is usually 24 or 48 hours are not suitable when someone is in custody for a 21-day period. Will the Minister help the House on the question of how frequently individuals have been transferred to prison from police cells during the period of detention, and on how the system has operated with regard to bringing them back to police stations for further interview?
	I am concerned that code H, which is the new code brought in to cover terrorist cases, still allows—at least in theory—for a person to be questioned for hour after hour over a period that could extend to 28 days. I do not think that that has happened in practice, but I am sure that the Minister will agree that having a code that allows questioning to take place almost incessantly over a 24-hour period, apart from an eight hour break for rest, is not really suitable for someone being detained for a long time. Is there not a danger, which we flagged up previously, that any statement made in that period might be challenged at a subsequent trial because of the degree not of coercion, but of sheer drudgery and the stressful experience of frequent questioning? I would be grateful for the Minister's comments on that if he has any information that he can give the House.

Douglas Hogg: When a person is held for a long time, he may decline to answer questions through, for example, fatigue. Should we not examine the statutory warning that judges give, to the effect that the jury can draw adverse conclusions? I wonder whether it is appropriate when the questioning has lasted many days.

Dominic Grieve: My right hon. and learned Friend makes an important point. Given that the PACE rules are clearly linked to the renewal that we are discussing, I hope that the Minister can respond to it, too. We want it to be clear that, if somebody is detained and interviewed, the interviews can be used. It serves no purpose to end up with a successful challenge to the use of interviews because it is argued that, notwithstanding the PACE rules, the process has become oppressive simply through the sheer repetitive nature of the questioning and the fact that someone is questioned over a long period when the rules were designed to deal with questioning over a short time. If the Minister can help us with that and on the extent of any analysis of the issue, I would be grateful to hear from him because that may provide some reassurance. If he does not have those answers this afternoon, perhaps he could write to me and place the information in the Library. That would helpful.
	Another issue troubles me and I approach it with care in relation to recent events. The period between arrest and charge has historically been short—often very short—and that meant little opportunity for media speculation about the nature of the offences for which individuals had been arrested. However, as the period of detention between arrest and charge lengthens and is not subject to the full rules of contempt of court—although it could fall within those rules—there is a plethora of media speculation. I believe that the Attorney-General has expressed her concerns about the matter and that she may have contacted the press collectively to do that. However, we cannot simply ignore the matter.
	Recent events suggest that press speculation is unconstrained and, because no charges are brought, there is no mechanism for stopping it. I fear that we will reach a position whereby it can be argued that a fair trial is impossible because of the amount of prejudice that has been occasioned to defendants in the period between arrest and charge. Given that 28 days is a long time—indeed, seven days or two weeks is a long time—I wonder whether we should think again about our approach to the matter. If we cannot impose some form of self-restraint, the time may come when we must consider other means. As the Minister knows, we discussed that in our proceedings on the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The subject was carefully approached and there was a widespread consensus that we did not want to take that road. However, I am increasingly worried about the matter.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. Does it not also apply to cases of extradition? Often, the British authorities suggest that they intend to seek extradition and, before they start proceedings, the media speculate at great length. Consequently, other countries decide that there is no possibility of a fair trial in this country. Does not the point also apply to speculation in the House?

Dominic Grieve: The hon. Gentleman may be making a good point about extradition. I have not focused on it especially, but if he can think of examples—

Chris Bryant: Russia.

Dominic Grieve: I do not believe that extradition would take place anyway in the case about which he is thinking, so the matter may not arise. However, he makes a fair point.

Nicholas Clegg: The hon. Gentleman makes an important observation. However, I wonder whether he is being too pessimistic. Is he aware of evidence from academic studies about the problem of the way in which media commentary can influence the decision-making of a jury trial? It shows that members of a jury are more sophisticated than some of the assumptions underlying his remarks suggest. They appear to be able to distinguish between media comment and their role as jury members. If we were confident that that was the case, rather than hoping against hope—and our better judgment—that we could put the genie back into the media bottle, should we not consider revising the rules to allow reality to play itself out?

Dominic Grieve: The hon. Gentleman knows that I am a rather firm defender of the jury system, and I happen to believe in the good sense of juries. I certainly agree that juries can apply common sense. I am sure that they are often asked to dismiss media speculation from their minds and that they can successfully do so. However, the hon. Gentleman might share my concern that what is coming out is not just speculation, but a torrent of "facts", many of which might not—I emphasise the words "might not"—ever be allowed to emerge at trial, even if they were indeed factually correct. That raises some quite difficult issues.
	I certainly do not want to suggest a prescriptive solution to the problem, but it is worth bearing in mind that the opportunity for such speculation and for the emergence of facts that might be prejudicial to a fair trial is clearly helped by lengthening the period between arrest and charge. I should be grateful for the Minister's comments on that, particularly as I understand that the Attorney-General has contacted the press to express her anxieties about it. I should also like to know whether the Government think that further legislation would be required to deal with the issue—not, I should like to emphasise, that that is a route on which I would wish to embark in an ideal world. Having fair trials is rather important, because otherwise we run the risk of allowing people who might have committed serious offences to escape conviction. That ought to be a matter of concern to everybody in the House.
	I do not want to take up more of the House's time and I am aware that others wish to speak. I hope that the Minister can provide answers to the queries that I have raised. We shall support the Government in the renewal of the order, even with the hope that it might not have to be renewed in future. On that point, I raise the issue, which has already been mentioned, of post-charge questioning. It is clear that post-charge questioning is intensely relevant to the period of time for which we have to detain people. I hope very much, therefore, that we can introduce it quickly.
	Finally, I simply say this to the Minister. At times, the suggestion has been made—not by the Minister, but by others in the Government—that a 28 or 90-day period is necessary not because of the need to question and gather evidence to bring somebody to trial, but almost because it acts as a disruptive mechanism, even though there is really no prospect of the person ever being charged and those arresting them know that.

John Bercow: That will not do.

Dominic Grieve: My hon. Friend says it clearly—that will not do, and it will not do under any circumstances whatever. I hope very much, therefore, that the Minister will take this opportunity to reassure us that that is not now, and will not be at any time in the future, the Government's reasoning.

David Winnick: I am obviously in favour of the order and of keeping the period of detention without charge as it is now, namely, 28 days. It would be odd if I were in any way in disagreement with the order.
	I said in an intervention, and I repeat now, that a consensus on the issue is desirable. The previous Home Secretary said that he would consult fully, which is a point that the Minister has made again today. We want to avoid a situation such as the one that we faced in November 2005, when there was a great deal of controversy and division. We are united against terrorism, but it would be unfortunate if the Government took the view that a longer period was necessary without providing compelling evidence. If any Government went down that route, whatever the outcome there would be a repeat of what happened before, namely, a great deal of controversy and division. I hope that we can avoid that.
	Most people will have seen the advertisement placed by Muslims last week, which emphasised that the overwhelming majority of Muslims who live in this country condemn terrorism. It branded as outright criminals those who want to inflict terror, and pointed out that Islam forbids the killing of innocent people. No one in this House would doubt that the overwhelming majority of Muslims living in our constituencies are totally and utterly opposed to terror. We must also, of course, recognise that Muslims would be among the victims.
	The criminals argue that they are protesting against foreign policy. In my time, I have protested against the foreign policies of previous Governments. I did so for many years over apartheid, but it was never suggested by the organisers that, because we could not get our way, we should inflict terror on our fellow citizens.
	I welcome the advertisement, but I want to make the point that inside the Muslim community, in the mosques and outside, there needs to be constant and continuous condemnation of terrorism. An advertisement arising from the events of last week is fine, and security is fine—one hopes that further security measures will be taken to protect our country—but in the end we are dealing with criminals who believe, according to their interpretation of their religion, that inflicting terror is right and justified. That must be dealt with in the Muslim community because it cannot be dealt with effectively from outside. The point must be made day in and day out, inside and outside the mosques, that Islam forbids the taking of innocent lives, as the advertisement stated.
	As for those who talk about protesting against foreign policy, how does that link up with trying to murder females in night clubs? Are we not dealing with people with particularly sick and evil minds, who can look upon women, young or old—obviously, in night clubs they would be young—as though they had no right to life? What is the word that these people use? Slag—a polite word for prostitute. That can come only from sick and evil minds.

John Bercow: I strongly agree with what the hon. Gentleman is saying now, but I think that he and everyone else would accept that that remorseless programme of education and persuasion is necessarily a continuing and probably long-term process. For the short term, and for the avoidance of doubt, will he tell the House whether, if the Government were to argue for an extension to the number of days, providing evidence—the term that he used—would have to mean published cases?

David Winnick: I would not disagree with the hon. Gentleman. At the end of it all, any extension beyond 28 days must depend on clear, persuasive evidence. I think that that is what he was suggesting. To repeat what I said in an earlier intervention, the Home Affairs Committee looked at all the facts. Like all Select Committees, it has members from all three main parties, and we came to the unanimous view that, at the moment, there is no such evidence.
	Having spoken about the sort of evil people who want to inflict terror on our fellow citizens, we have to be careful that we do not play into the hands of such criminals by passing legislation that is clearly counterproductive. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and others. We have to reach the right balance between security and civil liberties. Clearly, the criminals want a backlash and a situation where people, including Muslims, can be locked up.
	When the IRA was about, the security people were looking for people of Irish origin, not for Muslims, Sikhs or Buddhists. Likewise, at the moment the suspects come from the Muslim community. We risk a situation in which not only the criminals but the fellow travellers and the apologists can turn around and say, "What is happening is action against the Muslim community" and then try to rally that community against the laws passed in this country to protect our fellow citizens. That is why it is so crucial to learn from the experience of dealing with the IRA, internment and all the rest, and not to play into the hands of the very people who want to inflict terror.
	I take the view that, so far at least—whatever may happen in the future—Parliament has found the right balance and learned from some of the mistakes made in dealing with the IRA. That does not mean that more steps cannot be taken. It is very much the topic of the moment and it may well be raised tomorrow in Prime Minister's questions. Further steps can be taken to strengthen the necessary security at ports of entry, for example—again learning from past mistakes, which are much publicised in today's papers.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is it not to the credit of the British population that since the recent outrages we have seen such a measured and sensible response? People are aware of the savagery with which they are dealing, but the real tribute should be to the common sense of the population, who have not lost their sense of perspective or scented the ability to create scapegoats, but have rather continued to look for sensible and balanced argument.

David Winnick: My hon. Friend is right. We avoided a backlash against the Irish during the 30 years of terror in which atrocities were carried out. One of the advantages of age—there are many disadvantages, I am sure—is having a pretty long memory. My hon. Friend may remember that after the war there was Jewish terrorism in Palestine rather than Britain. I shall not go into the rights and wrongs of it, but attempts by fascists to create a backlash against Jews did not succeed. Fortunately, in the main we are sensible people and we do not want to create martyrs. We also recognise that when it comes to the IRA or Islamic terrorism—if we can call it such—we want to locate the guilty and not penalise the innocent in any way. Long may that continue to be so.
	I have a couple of points in conclusion. I believe that it is going to be a long haul against terrorism. The IRA's murderous campaign lasted some 30 years, but whether the present terrorism will last 30 years I do not know. It would be optimistic to believe that it was going to go away in the next year or two. I do not believe that, because terrorism has worldwide significance and what happens here is undoubtedly connected with events abroad. Adopting a different view would be optimistic, and I believe that we have to be realistic and have the patience to deal with this latest curse.

Jeremy Browne: Is there not a slight danger of drawing too precise a parallel with the IRA? After all, the IRA had a specific goal and specific intention and purpose behind their terrorism—despicable though it was. It is very hard to discern, however, a specific purpose or goal behind the current terrorism being waged against our and other western countries.

David Winnick: I partly agree, but I believe that the terrorists do have a specific goal and they hardly disguise it. Al-Qaeda barely avoids mentioning the sort of society that it would like—a Taliban type of society. It has no illusions about that, which brings me to my final point.
	Terrorists rejoice in mass murder. They glorify what they do and they glorify death, including the taking of their own lives. On the other hand, we rejoice in life itself and in all the liberties that have made Britain one of the most advanced democracies, in which Muslims no less than any other people enjoy full political and religious freedom. We have much to defend in this country. I believe that we will do so and will defend those liberties, the rule of law and everything that we believe to be so vital and crucial in making this country a civilised place in which to live. That is why, at the end of the day, terrorism will be defeated. I look forward to that day, even though it may not be in my lifetime.

Nicholas Clegg: We support the disapplication, if that is the word, of section 25 of the Terrorism Act 2006 and I can assure the House that we will not seek to divide it on the order. It is a matter of record that notwithstanding our very serious reservations about extending the period during which police can detain suspects without charge from 14 to 28 days, we accepted the case at the time. Recent events—the conviction of the four 21/7 terrorists in court yesterday and what happened in Glasgow and Haymarket last week—have provided a reminder, if any were needed, of why it is necessary that we constantly review the powers on the statute book. I also accept, at least as far as I understand the information that has been provided by the police and others, that the sheer complexity of one case—the alleged Heathrow bomb plot last summer—necessitated using the full 28-day period.
	However, as the Minister rightly suggested, and on which others expanded, this debate is as much a mini-dress rehearsal for a debate that we are likely to have in the autumn as anything else. Therefore, I would be remiss in my duties as the Liberal Democrat spokesperson on these matters if I did not emphasise that our support for the disapplication of section 25 should not in any way be taken as a signal that we think that the debate should evolve towards a further lengthening of the period during which the police can detain people without charge.
	It is worth reminding the House, as others have done, how far and how fast we have travelled. The sheer velocity with which the law has changed within a matter of years is striking. The change from 7 to 14 days took place only in 2003, and the change from 14 to 28 days in 2005. As the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) rightly suggested, we are now way out of step with practice in almost all other countries in the developed world and certainly other common law countries. A suspect needs to be brought before a judge within 24 hours in Canada and within 14 days in Australia. It is also 24 hours before a suspect needs to go before a magistrate in Italy. In Germany, the period is 48 hours.
	I do not make those points to oppose the measure—I support it—but we have travelled very far, very fast in a short time, and it is heavily incumbent on those who want to reopen the debate to prove why that case needs to be remade again.

William Cash: Like others, the hon. Gentleman calls for further evidence. The noble Lord Carlile said only a few days ago on the subject of some of those who had escaped these extremely lax control orders that there is "solid evidence" that the trio in question with regard to the Haymarket attempted bombing had wanted to join insurgents abroad and attack British troops serving in Iraq. I assume that he knew what he was talking about.

Nicholas Clegg: I am sorry, but I do not entirely understand the relevance of the noble Lord Carlile's comments on control orders to the matter at hand today, which is the period in which police can detain someone without charge. They are separate legal issues and I do not see the connection. Perhaps I am missing something.
	The hon. Gentleman refers to evidence. Given how far and fast we have changed the law in this respect, we believe that it is important that any reopening of the debate needs to be premised on overwhelming evidence. The Minister seemed uncomfortable about—I think he said he cavilled at—the notion that he might need to display evidence. I think he was uncomfortable for the simple reason that, as far as I am aware, there is as yet no overwhelming evidence that a period beyond 28 days is ever deemed necessary.
	If I understand the Government's case correctly, it is based on the assumption that although that has not yet happened, it will happen in the future. The alleged Heathrow bomb plot in particular has set alarm bells ringing in Whitehall and elsewhere with the prediction that it will be replicated in future, which would make the task of marshalling evidence and bringing charges in 28 days almost impossible. If my premise is correct, I should like the Minister to explain how the assumption has arisen. Where and in what way has analysis been conducted to suggest that last year's alleged complex Heathrow bomb plot will definitely be followed, as night follows day, by an even more complex plot?
	I do not imply that that concern has not been well argued or is not sincerely held, but I suspect that part of it flows from a feeling that the police may not have the resources to deal with the sheer complexity of such a plot and of an evidential trail that would stretch across the globe, as it tends to in such cases—hidden in hard drives and so on. Is it not incumbent on the Government to be more candid about the existence of a resources issue? Should they not state clearly that it may be a question less of simply seeking to extend indefinitely the period of detention without charge than of trying to give the police the resources with which to do the job?
	The Minister spoke eloquently, if perhaps a little uncharacteristically, of the need to establish cross-party consensus. That is a welcome development, but may I remind him politely that the clock is ticking? We have talked about cross-party consensus for several weeks, and I hope he will not think it churlish of me now to suggest that talk should be transformed into action. I am as yet unaware of any organised mechanism enabling such a consensus to be identified and established.
	The Minister referred to changes that the Liberal Democrats and others have advocated for some time, such as making intercept evidence available in court, allowing post-charge questioning, developing the practice of plea bargaining with the aim of gaining informants from among those who operate on the penumbra or margins of terrorist plots—plea bargaining is already used in serious organised crime cases, and I believe it could be used more in terror cases—and considering the so-called threshold test deployed by the Crown Prosecution Service when it brings charges in such cases. All those possibilities need to be examined.
	If the Minister agrees on that menu of possible changes, does he also agree that it is at least sensible to consider them first, for the sake of natural chronology, before once again pitching us all into a febrile debate about the time during which the police can detain people without charge? If we are to take a responsible and measured approach, we should think about those issues before deciding collectively to reopen the Pandora's box of 28 days.

Andrew Dismore: As chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, let me begin by complimenting my hon. Friend the Minister on his active engagement with us on these issues. While we may not agree with some of what he says, I do not think we can complain that he has been unwilling to talk to us.
	The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) made an important point which has been lost in the debate. What we are talking about is an extension of 14 days to 28, not an extension of 28 days to 90 or some other number. We need to focus on what this order is actually about. I do not think we are in a position to contradict either the Government or the Metropolitan Police Commissioner in their view that subsequent events have demonstrated the necessity of extending the maximum period from 14 to 28 days.
	The purpose of today's debate is the power of annual renewal in the Terrorism Act 2006, but if such a debate is to be meaningful it must be informed by a thorough, detailed and independent review of how the power has operated in practice. As my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) pointed out, this is not just about Muslim terrorism. We have recently witnessed a good deal of police activity relating to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, for instance, and we need to retain a broad approach to the issues.
	The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg) spoke of the speed of change. It is also important that we allow changes that have already taken place, such as those involving new offences, to bed down before we begin to consider wider extensions.

David Winnick: My hon. Friend says we should bear in mind that we are discussing an extension of 14 days to 28, not an extension to 90 days. I ask him to bear in mind what some of us pointed out to the Minister. The period of 14 days was agreed in both Parliaments with no Division, and similarly no one voted against the extension from 14 days to 28. Consensus was established then, and I believe it should be retained.

Andrew Dismore: I understand what my hon. Friend says, and I certainly would not vote against the 28-day extension, but I think we need to question the evidence on which it is based.
	The problem is that we do not have detailed enough evidence to contradict, or for that matter to confirm, what the Government say. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner gave my Committee some information about the airline bomb plot, following which 24 suspects were arrested in August last year. The information we received was that 17 of them were charged with offences. Of those 17, six were charged only after their detention had been extended beyond 14 days, and two were charged just four hours before the end of the 28-day period. Of the seven who were not charged, four were released without charge within the old 14-day period, but three were released without charge well after that time, including two who were released only at the very end of the 28-day period.
	It is clear to me that that bare statistical information is not sufficient to answer the question, "Does the airline bomb plot demonstrate the need for the extension to 28 days?" On the face of it, the fact that six suspects were detained for more than 14 days before being charged would appear to show that the increase was necessary. On the other hand, the fact that three of the five who were authorised to be detained for the full 28 days were released very close to the end of that period could be said to raise concerns about whether the power to detain for up to 28 days was being used to detain those against whom there was the least evidence.
	A series of more detailed questions needs to be answered. Let me give some examples. I do not say that this actually happened; we simply do not know.
	Was the evidence on which the individuals were charged after 14 days available before the expiry of the 14-day period? How precisely has the 28-day period enabled prosecutions to be brought that might otherwise not have been possible? How did the longer period affect the urgency with which the police pursued the investigation in relation to each of the suspects? How often were the suspects held for the longer period questioned by the police? Did the longer period available to the police have any noticeable effect on the amount of disclosure made by the police to the suspects? Are investigations being pursued in relation to any of the three suspects who were detained for almost the full 28-day period and then released without charge?
	The next question has already been raised today. How would the availability of post-charge questioning have affected the way in which the police conducted their investigation? Could some of the suspects have been charged with the same offence earlier than they were in fact charged? Here is an equally important question. What was the psychological impact on those who were detained for nearly four weeks before being released without charge?
	What worries me is that the report of the statutory reviewer, Lord Carlile, does not provide the sort of detained scrutiny that would answer questions of that kind. The problem is that the statistics do not settle the issue one way or another unless we dig deep into the information. It has been suggested that there should be a Privy Council inquiry, but I do not think that that is the answer. What we need is for the statutory reviewer to do his job properly, and provide us with answers to the questions that I have posed. That is what is required if we are to make informed decisions on whether to extend the period—initially from 14 days to 28 days, and perhaps subsequently for longer. I have no reason to doubt what the police and the Government have said about the 28-day period, but it must be noted that it is difficult to challenge what they say.
	There are also important issues to do with the available judicial safeguards, and in particular the questions that judges are expected to ask in respect of granting a longer period of detention. The first question is whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that further detention is necessary to preserve relevant evidence, and the second is whether the investigation has been conducted diligently and expeditiously. However, neither question addresses the substantive and basic issue of whether there was material in the first place that provided reasonable grounds for believing that the suspect had committed a terrorism-related offence. There is no onus on the police to justify to the court the basic premise for the suspect's detention. Why was the person arrested in the first place? Is the basic test for arrest met, never mind the test for continued detention? We must bear that important point in mind.
	I also want to discuss the conditions in which people are held at Paddington Green police station. A while ago, my Committee paid a visit to that station and members were horrified by what we saw. Paddington Green was not, of course, built for its current use. It was initially reinforced to provide additional security when those suspected of IRA terrorism were questioned, but the detention periods were much shorter then. The staff at Paddington Green do a very good job under difficult circumstances. I was impressed by the custody sergeants we met and the other staff, who try to look after people in their charge in a humane way.
	There are, however, problems with Paddington Green. There are only 16 cells, but more than 20 people at a time have been arrested during certain investigations and therefore some of them have had to be sent to Belgravia, which is not set up to deal with terrorism suspects. Paddington Green is also an ordinary police station that serves its local neighbourhood, and its normal day-to-day work is severely disrupted by such suspects. There are no dedicated facilities for forensic examination of suspects on arrival, and cells have to be specially prepared for that purpose, which exacerbates the shortage of accommodation. There is no dedicated space for exercise, so part of the car park is used for that—all the vehicles have to be moved around to create an inadequate exercise space. Only one room is provided for suspects to discuss their cases in confidence with their solicitor. There are no facilities on site for forensic examination of equipment such as computer hard drives, and the video conferencing room is too small. That also raises a question about video conferencing being used as a means to extend periods of detention via judicial hearings, which does not allow for a proper examination of suspects.
	Suspects held for such long periods are allowed no family contact, except for a monitored telephone call. If people are to be held for lengthy periods, we must consider whether strictly supervised family contact might be appropriate—letters, for example, are not currently allowed, but I do not understand why they should not be if there is also censorship. We need to consider the conditions in which people are held, and the inadequate conditions in which the police have to conduct their inquiries.
	We have inevitably come to the conclusion that Paddington Green must be replaced and that a new facility should be established as soon as possible. It should be located in London, and it should strike an appropriate balance between the need for high security and the desirability of it being accessible to the local community. It should be part of a functioning police station, rather than an exclusive terrorist facility, in order to maintain public confidence that people are being dealt with within the ordinary legal system. Proper accommodation for the police must also be close at hand. We heard stories about police officers having to live in hotels while conducting inquiries because of the long hours that they have to work. The facility must also be significantly larger, to cope with the requirements of holding many people and with the need to be adequate for detentions of at least the 28-day period that we are debating. Under the current arrangements people are moved from Paddington Green to Belmarsh after 14 days, and then shipped backwards and forwards to allow interviewing to continue. It is undesirable in principle for suspects to be transferred from police custody to prison custody during the period of pre-charge detention.
	We also ought to make it mandatory that police interviews of terrorist suspects are videoed. At present, that is not compulsory, which leads to arguments. Such videos would provide a safeguard both for the police against allegations of ill treatment and for suspects that the interviews are conducted properly.
	I will not oppose today's orders. If we are to be asked to consider a renewal next year or a further extension, we should have better evidence and scrutiny than we are currently provided with. However, regardless of whether we are asked to do so, we must ensure that the facilities in which people are held are adequate for the police and suspects.

Douglas Hogg: In view of the lateness of the hour and the fact that other Members wish to speak, I will be brief.
	Allowing the extension from 14 days to 28 days is an important step that raises significant civil rights considerations. I am willing to accept what the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) says about inadequate conditions in the holding police station—I think that he has a point. Holding people for as long as 28 days comes close to holding them in administrative detention, and if questioning takes place during the whole of that period there is a danger that those held will be coerced by circumstance into saying things that are untrue or misleading.
	The truth is that no Member present, with the possible exception of the Minister, knows whether the circumstances justify an extension to 28 days. I am prepared, at least for the moment, to accept that they might do so. The number of terrorist cells that need to be investigated might be a justification for that, as might the desirability of examining computer databases. However, the renewal should not be deemed to be automatic. This is a grave matter, and we should not be asked to renew every year without there being compelling supporting evidence.
	I also wish to endorse the points about the future raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). I am glad to hear that there will be a consultation paper, and I hope that it will be a genuine one and that there will also be genuine discussions. My hon. Friend is right that the issue of post-charge questioning is key in considering whether there should be an extension. If such questioning is allowed, there is less requirement for an extended holding period. He is also right that we must look at the codes that regulate the treatment of detainees being held for an extended period. It is important that the codes form part of the consultation. I also have concerns about the statutory warnings given by judges to juries if a detainee—or defendant as he has then become—has refused to answer questions during such an extended detention period. After an extended period of detention, it is not unreasonable for defendants to refuse to answer further questions, and I am worried about the adverse inference that juries can currently take from such a refusal. That should feature in the consultation.
	The House should not be asked to renew the provisions unless there is compelling evidence of need. I accept that it might be difficult for the House to be given such evidence as much of it will be covert in nature. The Government have suggested that they might be willing to establish a Privy Council Committee to look at intercept evidence. I would like such a Committee to be asked to consider evidence on whether there is a need for an extension to 28 days or more, as it could be told many things that cannot be openly ventilated in the House. The function of that Privy Council Committee would be to receive the evidence, to assess the weight of the evidence and to advise the House. Ultimately it would be for the House to decide whether we wished to accept that advice, but I would be much more comfortable about making a decision to extend the period either to or beyond 28 days if I were in receipt of such advice.

David Winnick: I have often noted that those who are in favour of Privy Council discussions are themselves Privy Councillors.

Douglas Hogg: I take it that that is a rebuke of me, but I am not trying to be self-interested. I am trying to say that some things have to be said confidentially, and that is clearly the case with the intercept evidence. After all, the hon. Gentleman's party has decided that the intercept matters should be considered by a Privy Council Committee and I assume that that is because of the covert nature of the information to be disclosed. The same principle applies in this case and it is on that basis that I make my suggestion.

William Cash: We are short of time, so I shall deal briefly with the main points. The Government cannot get away with the argument, sneaky or otherwise, that this matter has adequate consultation to come. The reality is that they have had more than enough time to sort this out. There has been a succession of failures. The Minister himself has had to admit that control orders do not work. He has said so on the record. The bottom line is that the sunset clause was a last resort, which I voted for only after very careful consideration, although it was completely against the rest of the Bill. Control orders do not work because they are constructed on the basis of the human rights legislation and it is impossible to square the circle.
	With regard to the question of evidence, I have already mentioned that Lord Carlile has said that there is a certain amount of evidence for the extension of the period of time. That has also been endorsed by at least two former Attorney-Generals. Much of the argument that I have heard does not take account of the fact that under the existing provisions a senior judge is concerned only in applications for extension of detention beyond 14 days. I personally see no reason why a red judge should not be involved at a much earlier stage. I am all in favour of habeas corpus, and Lord Steyn said that it was the most important of all the functions of judges. Therefore, it is essential that judges are brought in at an early stage, but that is not to say that it follows that in certain circumstances, providing that it is properly staged and that there is to be a fair trial and due process, there should not be a period of time in excess of 28 days. I do not suggest that it need be 90 days, but in certain circumstances more than 28 days will be required, and I am certain that the Government know that. I accuse them of playing political games with a very serious subject. They could have dealt with this issue at an earlier stage, but they failed to do so. It is a case of grave negligence against the public interest that the Government have not dealt with it so far.
	The consultation period will lead to yet further consultation, which will then lead to a Bill. By then, almost anything could have happened. The  Evening Standard leader points out today that
	"judicial scrutiny...has been damaged by excessive judicial concern about suspects' rights."
	I agree. If one re-reads the House of Lords decisions in the Belmarsh case in December 2004, one finds many reasons for believing that the Law Lords got carried away with themselves. Nine out of 10 did so and that was a great shame. They have an opportunity now to redress the balance.
	There are many things that could and should be said this afternoon, but in conclusion I merely say that I believe that there is ample evidence. Nobody has rebutted Mr. Hayman's analysis way back in 2005. Time and again I have heard people say that there is no evidence, but I have not seen a single paper demonstrating that his paper is intrinsically wrong. I shall say no more as I know that others wish to speak, but I hope that the consultation does not fall into the wet social liberal attitudes that I have observed on this question. We should put the public interest first and ensure that we protect the public.

Paul Goodman: I shall be brief and address myself directly to the public interest to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) has just referred. I wish to look at the order through the lens of community cohesion. It is undoubtedly true that in the struggle against al-Qaeda and the sort of atrocious incidents that we saw last weekend in London and Glasgow, the solution cannot be only one of security. The winning of hearts and minds, as both my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) and the Prime Minister have put it, is crucial.
	I represent the largest number and percentage of Muslims of any official Opposition Member of Parliament. When I meet them, as I regularly do, they make the point that al-Qaeda likes nothing better than to be able to portray events as a plot or conspiracy against Islam. I found that out only last weekend when it was put to me that the knighthood awarded to Salman Rushdie was part of an anti-Islamic plot, organised by the Government. Although I am not, of course, a great defender of the Government, I tried to put that point of view right directly.
	Arguably, approving the order and retaining the 28 days will make it more difficult to win Muslim hearts and minds. That cannot, of course, be the final consideration. In the delicate balance of civil liberties and national security, weight must sometimes be placed on national security. That is what happened when the 28-day period was approved without a Division. Since the question of 90 days has been raised this afternoon, I have to say that any move to that period would make it more difficult to win hearts and minds. While that consideration is not in itself conclusive, if a proposal for 90 days were put before the House, I would want to see much more evidence that there was a case for it. Indeed, I would want to see incontrovertible evidence before supporting it.

Tony McNulty: I commend the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) on the work that he has done in Wycombe since the alleged plot last summer. It is sad that on the two or three occasions I have been there our paths have not crossed—not for any adverse reasons. I agree with what he says about hearts and minds and that this is not just a security problem that requires a security solution.
	I thought that I made it clear in my opening remarks six individuals had been held for the full term, three of whom were convicted and three who were not. The actual figure for 14 days-plus was 10, seven of whom were convicted. I take the points made by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) about PACE. The hope is that the Crown Prosecution Service will put out a paper alongside the consultation papers that we issue, summing up the position in terms of the need for a time between 14 and 28 days. I also accept the point that interviews that cannot be used are of no value to anyone. I agree with his points about the possibility of pushing back the barriers in terms of the recognised normality for the rule of law to no avail, for interviews that are ultimately inadmissible. On his points about welfare, the police have in all circumstances sought to ensure that questioning is not excessive and that those detained are given regular breaks for exercise and so on. If I obtain any further information on that, I will put it in the Library.
	It is suggested that the provision is used to get round the broader law—that it is used as a disruptive measure in cases in which there is no possibility of charges being laid—but I can confirm that that is emphatically not the Government's starting point. I accept the point that further discussion is needed of the evidence, the nature of the evidence and people's judgments and speculation about the nature of the future threat. As the hon. Gentleman suggests, however, such consideration is properly for the real play, rather than the dress rehearsal, to use his terms.
	As to the hon. Gentleman's comment that there is no evidence of consensus at this stage, we would rather get the papers and the substance out—he has an advantage over much of the House, as he has seen some of the papers during early discussions. He is right that the mechanisms of such consultations should also be discussed. I am not with him on his specific point about chronology: if a Bill is coming, it is right to discuss all the issues together. It would not work to discuss where we are going on pre-charge detention—whether 28 days or otherwise, back to 14 days or beyond—outwith discussion of what else is in the Bill. I do not accept his point about Pandora's box—I was going to make a little joke about Morrison, with Pandora's box opening and all sorts of Trojan horses jumping out, but I shall not bother.
	I am grateful for the thrust of much of the discussion. In the last couple of minutes, I want to pursue the issue raised by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield: the notion that the longer people are detained before charge, the more time there is for speculation among the 24/7—as it is described—media. That is a two-edged point, and he discussed one of the edges. I do not have any instant answers. It grates a little when, for at least a little while during the process, the only "factual" view of the world comes from the putative defence solicitor getting his retaliation in early, which clouds the issues.
	The hon. Gentleman will know that the large trials that have come to fruition recently—Rhyme, Crevice and others—have had that merry dance for at least two or three weeks, when the whole discourse has been about whether a fair trial can take place and whether the nature of the media coverage was fair or otherwise. In part, we are stuck with that. If, however, during the course of our deliberations, we can come to some consensus about what we do about that, or how that is managed around the edges, without being draconian, I would be enormously grateful, as long as that included solicitors having a free run for the defendant as well as the media speculating ad nauseam.

Dominic Grieve: rose—

Tony McNulty: I would love to give way, but I think that we have run out of time. We have another dance to come. I commend the order to the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That the draft Terrorism Act 2006 (Disapplication of Section 25) Order 2007, which was laid before this House on 11th June, be approved

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Tony McNulty: I beg to move,
	That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2007, which was laid before this House on 2nd July, be approved.
	I am happy both to discuss and take questions on organisations other than the two listed in the order. I would like to deal with those first, and then we can have whatever discourse the House would like on Hizb ut-Tahrir or any other organisation. I think that I was eight lines into my speech the last time that I moved any kind of proscription order before my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) asked a question about Hizb ut-Tahrir. I am happy to come back to that or any other organisations that should or should not be on the proscribed list once I have dealt with the two organisations under consideration.

David Heath: I am sticking absolutely to the Minister's suggestion. May I put to him the point that I have made previously when we have considered proscribed organisations, which is on a matter of procedure? The list of proscribed organisations is presented as an order, which is unamendable. If the same order lists organisations that are not related to one another, it is not possible for the House to apply discretion as to the merits or otherwise of the bodies listed. I have no reason to suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg) will not agree to the Minister's suggestions in respect of the two organisations concerned. I put it to him again, however, that it would be much more satisfactory, in procedural terms, if separate orders were provided for each organisation, which could be debated in a single debate, with the agreement of the House. That would allow dissent, if appropriate, to be demonstrated.

Tony McNulty: Let me explore that issue, because I get the general point. Last time, the issue was even more pronounced, as the four organisations on the list were so discernibly different, some being successor bodies to Al Mujahiroun, and some being related to the PKK and the Turkish situation. As a matter of law, I think that the orders are split up into separate orders after we have passed them. I do not know or understand the procedure that puts the organisations together in one order. I do not doubt that there might come a stage when people are very exercised about one organisation on the list, and may want to press that matter to a Division, while accepting the proscription of the other organisations. I shall look at the procedural elements. The hon. Gentleman should not be suspicious: the way in which the order is presented is not related to anything that I have done. He makes a fair point, which he also raised last time, when it was more appropriate.
	After that little preamble, I will deal with the specifics of the two organisations. Proscription is a tough power: it means that the organisation is outlawed in the UK and cannot operate here. Membership of a proscribed organisation is an offence, as is inviting support for it. Proscription also makes it unlawful to raise funds on behalf of the organisation.
	Members of the House know, because they have read the order, that the two organisations concerned are to be proscribed under the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2007, rather than the Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2006, the difference between which is clear to everybody.
	The two organisations listed in the order are directly concerned in terrorism, not just in propagating, supporting or proselytising on behalf of such groups. They are Jammat-ul Mujahideen Bangladesh— JMB from now on—and Tehrik Nefaz-e Shari'at Muhammadi, or TNSM.
	TNSM's objective is the militant enforcement of sharia law in Pakistan. There is significant evidence that it regularly attacks coalition soldiers and Afghan Government forces in Afghanistan. It provides direct support to al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and is believed to have been behind an attack on a Pakistani military base in November 2006, which killed 42 personnel.
	JMB has claimed responsibility for numerous fatal bomb attacks in Bangladesh since first coming to prominence in 2002. In August 2005, some 500 bombs were set off in all but one of Bangladesh's 64 districts in the space of an hour by JMB. The Bangladeshi Government recently announced the execution of six leaders of the JMB, including its chief. However, some sources indicate that the organisation has a significant number of full-time members. There are indications that it is making efforts to re-group to continue its campaign of terror.
	The proscription of those two groups will support our international partners in disrupting terrorist activity by making the UK a hostile environment for terrorists and their supporters. It will also send the strong message to terrorists that the UK is not willing to tolerate terrorism either here or anywhere else in the world. There is a substantive case against JMB and TNSM.

Andrew Dismore: My hon. Friend is setting out a good case in respect of the evil and nefarious activity of those organisations overseas. What is the evidence that they are active in the UK, like organisations such as the LTT, which, as we saw in recent arrests, is active in both Sri Lanka and London?

Tony McNulty: Let me tell my hon. Friend and the House, which I deliberately tried to resist doing, the factors, to which the order refers, that are taken into account in proscribing such organisations. They are: the nature and scale of an organisation's activities; the specific threat that it poses to the UK; the specific threat that it poses to British nationals overseas; the organisation's presence in the United Kingdom; and the need to support other members of the international community in tackling terrorism. At least two, if not more, of the criteria, apply to the two organisations—certainly, the one regarding the international community. Furthermore, the Pakistan-based group offers a specific threat to British nationals overseas—our servicemen. I do not know offhand why those concerns relate specifically to those organisations in this country, but I shall find out for the House. The criteria I mentioned are among the range that determines whether we should proscribe them.

Dominic Grieve: I accept that the Government are entitled to look at the criteria in the round, but the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) raised an important issue: the extent to which the Government believe that one or other of the organisations is present in the United Kingdom in an organised form. As the Minister will appreciate, proscribing something that does not really exist in this country serves little purpose in reality. It would be helpful if he could amplify his remarks to explain whether the Government believe that one or other of the organisations has a presence in the UK, financially—in terms of raising or placing money—or in terms of recruitment or organisation.

Tony McNulty: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. As I understand the order, the need to support other members of the international community in tackling terrorism and the specific threat the organisation poses to British nationals overseas are the principal criteria. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's remark that if groups do not organise in this country, or there is no evidence that they do so, proscribing them is redundant. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), if I can offer the House evidence about the ability thus far of the groups to organise in this country, I shall do so, to the extent that I am able to give such information.

Khalid Mahmood: Does my hon. Friend agree that although organisations may not be present in this country, they invariably use various networks, and occasionally literature and other things, to raise funds to support their activities in the countries where they are based? Proscribing such organisations in the UK is a practical step to stop funding that supports them in other countries.

Tony McNulty: I agree with my hon. Friend. As I have already said, to the extent that I can put in the public domain the information that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon requires, I shall do so. He referred earlier to police activity involving the LTTE, another proscribed organisation; his implication was right. Many Members know that the LTTE organises effectively in the UK, especially in terms of fundraising and other support, for its nefarious activities in Sri Lanka. It is not the case that each of the 44 proscribed organisations meets every element of the criteria under the Terrorism Act 2000 and the Terrorism Act 2006. We have to make an overall judgment as to the balance of their offences according to the criteria, and it is on that basis that I offer the orders to the House.
	I have been waiting anxiously for my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda to intervene, but as he seems to have chosen not to do so and we are not to have a lengthy discussion about Hizb ut-Tahrir, I shall quit while I am ahead and sit down.

Dominic Grieve: I hope that our debate on the order is not as long as our previous debate.
	To make my position clear, I must point out that the Minister somewhat traduced my remarks. There may be compelling reasons why we should ban the organisations, even if they have no presence in the UK at all. Indeed, Jammat-ul Mujahideen Bangladesh is an active terrorist organisation in that country and there is ample evidence of its activities, so, on the basis of comity between nations that are international partners in the fight against terrorism, that in itself would be a good reason for banning it. However, unless there are compelling security reasons why the Minister cannot amplify his remarks, it would be useful for the House to know whether the Government think that the activities of one or other of the organisations pose a threat within the UK.
	The second organisation, Tehrik Nefaz-e Shari'at Muhammadi, appears to be involved in direct violence against British or coalition forces in Afghanistan, although I rather suspect—I may be wrong—that, like many localised groupuscules in that benighted country, its reach does not extend to the UK. That raises an important issue: proscription must be for a purpose—to prevent organisations from operating in this country. I agree entirely with the comments of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Mahmood) that the problem with such groups is that unless they have an organised structure in this country that proscription will disrupt, which is all that proscription can do, I am afraid the evidence suggests that there are plenty of means whereby people can raise funds for them in this country or support them in some other way, if they want to do so—for example, by setting up bogus charitable foundations to funnel money. At the end of the debate, it would be useful if the Minister amplified briefly his remarks to tell us how the Government are tackling that phenomenon. From my personal contacts, I know of plenty of examples that give me serious doubts about where so-called charitable fundraising may be going. The debate may provide an opportunity to discuss that. Subject to that proviso, I do not intend to take up the House's time further on the two organisations.
	Before I sit down, however, I mention in passing that the Minister is well aware that other organisations have excited the concern of the House—in particular, Hizb ut-Tahrir. I remind him that Hizb ut-Tahrir would not feature so much in the House's discourse were it not for the fact that the previous Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, stated openly—I think in the House—that he considered it a terrorist-supporting organisation that ought to be banned. He thereby raised a hare that a large number of people have pursued ever since. As the then Prime Minister of the UK took the view that Hizb ut-Tahrir is a terrorist organisation, it was rather strange that nothing happened thereafter. Two years later, despite those emphatic statements, Hizb ut-Tahrir has still not been banned, so I hope the Minister will take the opportunity of this debate, when we are looking at other organisations, to explain more fully than in the intervention of the previous Home Secretary at Prime Minister's Question Time why the Government feel that the basis for proscription does not exist.

Chris Bryant: What I am about to say is in no sense meant to be in support of Hizb ut-Tahrir, but the organisation has written widely that the Leader of the Opposition wrote to it last year to congratulate it on its comments about the relationships between western Governments and the Muslim world. Would the hon. Gentleman like to put on the record precisely what the Conservative party's position is with regard to Hizb ut-Tahrir?

Dominic Grieve: I have not yet encountered the letter. In the past, I have appeared on television to debate matters with Hizb ut-Tahrir, and when I listen to what its members have to say what springs to my mind is Oliver Cromwell's description of the Fifth Monarchy Men—poor fantasticals. That expression seems the best way of describing Hizb ut-Tahrir and its beliefs. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is considerable evidence to suggest that individuals who have committed terrorist acts have passed through Hizb ut-Tahrir on the way. I seem to remember that there was compelling evidence of an association between Hizb ut-Tahrir and Omar Bakri Mohammad.

Brooks Newmark: My hon. Friend makes some excellent points on Hizb ut-Tahrir, but is not al-Muhajiroun another conveyor belt to terrorism in this country? Would the same points that he makes about Hizb ut-Tahrir be equally applicable to al-Muhajiroun?

Dominic Grieve: My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and the House should bear in mind two things. First, a proscription list is a draconian sanction. The fact that people may say things that we regard as unpleasant or unacceptable or that they have a view of the world with which we profoundly disagree does not give us a justification for proscribing them. The Minister and I would be entirely in agreement about that. My hon. Friend may be right about al-Muhajiroun, but what arises with regard to Hizb ut-Tahrir is the remarkable fact that the then Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, considered that it required proscription, yet proscription has never taken place. Quite compelling evidence links that organisation with Omar Bakri Mohammad, who has undoubtedly said and done things that place him well beyond the line of criminal behaviour, and there is clear evidence that people have passed through Hizb ut-Tahrir into terrorism.
	As the Minister rather invited hon. Members to raise this issue, it is worth raising. If he could amplify the few things that have been said about that organisation to explain the Government's reasoning in relation to it and, in particular, the Government's change in position from what the previous Prime Minister clearly believed, which was that the organisation ought to be banned, it would be useful to the House. Quite apart from anything else, it would enable us to draw comparisons about why certain organisations are proscribed and others are not.

Chris Bryant: I rather sympathise with the points that the hon. Gentleman makes about the organisation, but I want to clear up the fact that Hizb ut-Tahrir says that the Leader of the Opposition wrote to it saying:
	"David is most grateful to you for your comments on relationships between western governments and the Muslim world. He fully takes on board the points put across to him... Yours comments are noted and appreciated."
	The letter concludes:
	"Thank you again for writing; your views have been taken on board."
	That seems an extraordinary thing for him to write to such an organisation if he wants it to be proscribed. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would like to check whether such a letter was written.

Dominic Grieve: I am very happy to check. Given the use of the third person in the passage that the hon. Gentleman cited, I detected that it was not a letter signed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron). How that letter came to be written, if it came to be written, I simply have no idea. I say that honestly; I do not know. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman raise the issue directly with my right hon. Friend and his office, and he might then have an answer.
	My right hon. Friend has repeatedly expressed concern rather legitimately about why, in view of the previous Prime Minister's attitude to Hizb ut-Tahrir—he believed that it was fomenting violence—and the fact that it was seen as more than just an unpleasant organisation, the Government have not taken action in respect of it. The Minister may be able to answer our questions.

Andrew Dismore: I certainly have no objection to the two organisations specified in the draft order being proscribed on the basis of their activities overseas. When I asked my hon. Friend the Minister whether they were active in the UK, I intended not to oppose what he proposes but to try to elicit whether there is evidence to support his argument. It is important that we know what activities proscribed organisations are carrying out in the UK. Of course, when considering Islamic terrorism in particular, we have always had the problem of splinter groups. When a group is proscribed, it suddenly reinvents itself as something else—it changes its name—and that may well have happened with some of these organisations.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: My hon. Friend might be aware that, as soon as students join certain well-known colleges in the university system, their first contact in many instances is with really very extreme groups. Frankly, that is very worrying.

Andrew Dismore: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and that brings me to Hizb ut-Tahrir. As the House knows, I first raised the activities of Hizb ut-Tahrir many years ago, and I have done so consistently over the years. I have spoken privately to the former Home Secretary and, indeed, successive Home Secretaries about the need for action to be taken.
	My concern about Hizb ut-Tahrir is that we hear the weasel words that it does not engage in terrorism, but I certainly think that it creates the climate in which people move on, as has been suggested. Omar Bakri Mohammad came to the UK quite a long time ago—in fact, if we are to get into party political arguments, he was given indefinite leave to remain by the Government of, I think, Mrs. Thatcher—to set up Hizb ut-Tahrir in the UK. He was its organiser here. He eventually fell out with it and went on to establish al-Muhajiroun and the various splinter groups that flow from it. I am pleased that he is no longer on our shores, although he seems to be able to communicate pretty effectively through the internet to spread his pretty evil message.
	If we are proscribing JMB and TNSM primarily on the basis of their activities overseas, what effort have we made to track down the activities of Hizb ut-Tahrir in other countries on the same basis? Although it claims not to be engaged in such activities in the UK, what is happening in other countries? For example, I know that Egypt has been concerned about the activities of Hizb ut-Tahrir. I certainly do not hold up Uzbekistan as a example of liberal democracy—far from it; it has a pretty nasty regime—but it believes quite strongly that it faces a serious terrorist threat organised by Hizb ut-Tahrir. I have no way of knowing whether that it right, but it has certainly raised that issue with me.
	If we are able to proscribe TNSM because of its activities in Pakistan—of course, Pakistan is not a democracy—and JMB on the basis of what happens in Bangladesh, perhaps we can look at what Hizb ut-Tahrir is up to in other countries as well. I simply put that to my hon. Friend the Minister and hope that he can tell us whether he has received representations from other Governments about the activities of Hizb ut-Tahrir abroad. If he has received those representations and their contents can be substantiated, exactly the same test should apply to a ban on Hizb ut-Tahrir as to the two organisations that we are considering.
	The other issue that I particularly want to raise, which I have raised tangentially in interventions, relates to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam and the Tamil terrorist organisation that operates both in Sri Lanka and, I am afraid, in the UK—not by carrying out terrorist attacks, but I have little doubt that fundraising and protection rackets are going on here and that active support for the LTTE is being organised within the Tamil community.
	This issue seriously splits the Tamil community. There are those who would give support to the LTTE—perhaps moral support, rather than physical support—but others are vehemently opposed to the LTTE. The Home Office has come under some pressure in debates in the House to lift the proscription of the LTTE, and I urge my hon. Friend the Minister, if he needs urging, not to go down that route. LTTE activity has significantly increased both in Sri Lanka and in London very dramatically in recent months, and it would send totally the wrong message if he were to go down that route.
	There have been two significant arrests of LTTE activists, who have been charged with terrorist offences over the past few weeks. Indeed, there was a raid in my constituency in Grahame Park, and I believe that material was seized during that raid and bank accounts have been frozen, so I hope that my hon. Friend—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind all hon. Members who wish to contribute to the debate that its scope primarily is about the two organisations listed in the order. I do not mind a passing reference to other organisations, but the debate is primarily about those two organisations.

Andrew Dismore: I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Minister said in introducing the debate that he would be happy to deal with other organisations as well. I am not sure whether you were in the Chair at that time, but I take on board your constrictions.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I was here when the Minister made that remark. Nevertheless, although he has considerable authority and power, when it comes to the Chamber and debates, they lie with the occupant of the Chair.

Andrew Dismore: Of course, Madam Deputy Speaker. I could not possibly question your remarks. In fact, I have made my point about the LTTE, which is the last issue that I wish to raise, so I shall draw my remarks to a close.

Nicholas Clegg: I obviously fully endorse what the Minister said and have no reason to question in any way the decision to proscribe the two organisations, which I too will refer to acronymically—if that is the right of way of putting it—as TNSM and JMB. I have one simple question, which has not yet been asked: if JMB was responsible for the detonation of, I think, 300 bombs in 50 Bangladeshi cities in just one hour on 17 August 2005 and if it is so widely accepted and well documented that TNSM has been actively involved in launching attacks on coalition forces in Afghanistan, why is the move to proscribe those two organisations only taking place now? All those events were well known months and years ago and are explicit, overt acts of horrific terrorism. I simply do not understand why there appears to have been such a time lag between those well-documented events and the move to proscribe the organisations. Perhaps the Minister can shed some light on that.
	With your admonitions in mind, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will refer only briefly to Hizb ut-Tahrir, but it does seem to have emerged as quite a prevalent theme in the debate today. I am perplexed by the position of the Conservatives on the issue. It was raised by the Leader of the Opposition, but there is only one Member—a Whip—on the Conservative Benches at the moment. That is a most peculiar way of underlining a point made in such strident terms by the leader of the Conservative party. Given that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) quite rightly underlined in the previous debate—about periods of detention without charge—the necessity of having concrete evidence when taking steps in this area, I am still at a loss to know where the evidence is and how it has been marshalled to sustain the claim that Hizb ut-Tahrir should join TNSM and JMB on the list of proscribed organisations.
	It is not often—in fact, it is exceptionally rare—that I find myself in agreement with the words of the previous, and no doubt widely lamented, Home Secretary, but when he spoke out on the subject in Prime Minister's questions recently, and pleaded for an evidence-based approach, I thought that he was completely correct. The hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) referred to activities in Uzbekistan and elsewhere. As he knows very well, it is extremely difficult to get authoritative and objectively verified facts from countries such as Uzbekistan as far as the activities of this and other organisations are concerned. I am familiar with that myself, having in a previous incarnation worked in central Asia and in Uzbekistan.
	The issue of principle is this: if there are organisations such as Hizb ut-Tahrir that are, if not explicitly, certainly implicitly, anti-Semitic, and which seem to me to stand for a theocratic philosophy that I, as a Liberal Democrat, find abhorrent but which do not explicitly espouse the use of terrorist violence to prosecute their aims, surely the only thing to do is to take on those organisations on their own terms, defeat their ideas, and defeat and expose their ideology for the mishmash of prejudice and misplaced grievances that it clearly is. If the Conservative party is to claim that it is a liberal Conservative party, I wonder why in this case it does not seem to have more self-confidence in the liberal arguments that need to be deployed when confronted by the abhorrent views of Hizb ut-Tahrir, rather than immediately seeking to score what appear to be political points and reaching for the statute book, when the evidence simply does not suggest that that is merited.

Chris Bryant: As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) mentioned, when the issue of new proscriptions comes up, we are often presented with organisations that are not necessarily coherent as a set. That presents us with a problem, not least because the list of 44 proscribed organisations includes organisations as diverse as Abu Nidal, November 17, and Euskadi ta Askatasuna—ETA—in Spain. The variety with which we might have to deal in one debate, without an opportunity to amend the legislation, is quite extraordinary. On a point of order for the future, I wonder whether Ministers would consider presenting the whole list again each year, so that we could refer regularly to all the organisations that are proscribed, rather than simply to any new organisations as they are being proscribed. Of course, I support the Government's proposals on the two organisations, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) mentioned, the rationale behind their proscription could properly be used for the proscription of other organisations.

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that theoretically the process is reversible and that Ministers could put before us orders to de-proscribe organisations. It is incumbent on the Government to review periodically all the organisations on the list to which he refers to see whether the conditions still apply.

Chris Bryant: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I merely make the point that it would be helpful and right for Parliament regularly to assist the Government in that process of review, because there are important issues that we are in effect deciding on behalf of the nation when it comes to how we address terrorism. Once an organisation is proscribed, in theory its status might never be reviewed again, which would be inappropriate.
	I want to refer to some comments that have been made by other organisations and which should make the Government think twice about whether to proscribe them. For instance, in Australia last year, at an Eid carnival in Melbourne, leaflets were distributed that said that Muslims
	"enormously rejected their evil and corrupt rulers that the West have appointed over them, and they are looking forward to consigning them to the dustbins of history".
	I suppose we might all say that we have referred to our own political opponents and said that we would quite like to consign them to the dustbins of history. However, the leaflets went on to point out that Muslims had scored victories over the west through some of their terrorist activities around the world and had
	"inflicted the most humiliating lesson on supposed superpowers".
	They called on all Muslims to
	"Ally yourselves with those who work day and night to confront this war against Islam."
	One ought to consider whether an organisation such as that is seeking to promote and glorify terrorism.
	In Copenhagen, in October 2002, Fadi Abdullatif was given a suspended sentence because he maintained in a square in Copenhagen that
	"The Jews are a people of slander...a treacherous people...they fabricate lies and twist words from their right context."
	I am sure that all hon. Members would agree with the sentence that the court handed down. The leaflet went on to quote words that were quoted in this Chamber only last week. The leaflet urged Muslims to kill Jews
	"wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out".
	I understand that some organisations debate whether that is a proper quotation from the Koran and whether it is anti-Semitic, because the translation does not normally refer to Jews; it refers to invading forces. None the less, most of us would accept that that is certainly glorifying terrorism.
	In Bangladesh, on 10 February this year, leaflets were given out and people chanted slogans and carried banners that said: "Death to those who degrade our beloved prophet!" and "Hang culprits". Other banners said: "Free speech symbolizes War on Islam" and "Free speech—Crusade against Islam".
	All those things have been organised under the name of Hizb ut-Tahrir. That is why I ask the Minister very clearly to consider the importance of keeping under constant review the issue of whether Hizb ut-Tahrir should be on the list of proscribed organisations. It is proscribed in most of the Muslim nations of central Asia: in Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Tatarstan and—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman of my ruling? He has made his point.

Chris Bryant: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me the liberty that I have taken. I would merely urge the Minister to look at whether the reasons behind the proscriptions that he has proposed today are not also reasons why we might consider proscribing Hizb ut-Tahrir.

Tony McNulty: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) about the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. I cannot give the House a running commentary on any discussions that we might have with Governments, the Security Service or the police about organisations that we may proscribe in future, but the last time we introduced a proscription order, I said at the Dispatch Box that we would keep Hizb ut-Tahrir under serious review. I got a very nice letter from that group as a result, and I do not doubt that I will get another one today. We keep it under review, not least for the reasons that my hon. Friend gave, and that is as it should be. That applies to a whole range of other groups, too.
	The roving Whip, the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newmark), mentioned al-Muhajiroun. It had disbanded by the time we got round to considering proscription orders, but the first proscription order that I introduced banned al-Ghurabaa and the Saved Sect, two of its successor bodies. There was clear, substantive and sustainable evidence for doing so.
	As I say, we keep Hizb ut-Tahrir under review, but it seems that the issue, which is one of 12 that the previous Prime Minister mentioned on 5 August 2005, is now used as a stick with which to beat the Government. It is used to challenge the legitimacy of all that we are trying to do to counter terrorism, and that is a little churlish, if not schoolboyish. I am certainly not casting aspersions on the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), who treats such issues seriously, but the Leader of the Opposition prances around—with or without the letter to which my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) referred—treating the issue as some kind of badge of honour, and questioning whether the Government are deadly serious about what we are doing. Frankly, that is schoolboy politics, and he should know far better. The last time we discussed these matters, I said very seriously that we keep Hizb ut-Tahrir under review, and that is certainly the case.
	Inspiration has come to me since I last sat down, so I can tell hon. Members that neither of the organisations mentioned in the order is based in the UK; and, clearly, as they are to be proscribed, that is unlikely to change. However, I take the point that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield made about charities. We are holding a review of the safeguards that are in place for charities, not least in the context of terrorist finance. A consultation on that issue is under way as we speak, and it closes on 2 August. I have engaged fully with the Treasury on the issue of terrorist finance and the nexus with charities, charitable law and the work of the Charity Commission. That work is ongoing, because we know—sometimes through anecdote, and sometimes via more substantive routes and evidence—that not every penny given to nominally bona fide, utterly legitimate charities will get to where it is supposed to go.
	There are those, terrorists among them, who crawl on the back of human disasters—often very serious ones—such as earthquakes, and the money directly funds terrorism, so I share the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield. I am not saying that what we have done thus far with the Treasury and the Charity Commission is sufficient, but it does take us some way. If he has not seen the documents to which I refer, I will make sure that he receives them.
	I point out to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) that it is not incumbent on the Government to de-proscribe or review. Organisations can apply to the Home Secretary for de-proscription, and if the Home Secretary says no, there is an appeal process. It is incumbent on the organisation, in the first instance, to ask, "Can we be de-proscribed now?" It is not for us to review the decision. If the Home Secretary refuses, the issue comes before the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission, or POAC. I have just noticed that that is an anagram of ACPO, but there is no reason why anyone else should worry about that. POAC is a special tribunal of three members, including a senior member of the judiciary, that determines whether the Secretary of State's decision to refuse to de-proscribe is flawed, when considered in the light of the principles applicable to judicial review applications. That is the process; there is no duty on the Government to be proactive in considering such cases.
	I take to heart the points that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome made about procedures and paperwork. He asked whether there were ways in which we could consider the issues under separate orders and so have a wider review, which would almost span the globe: the organisations include the Partiya Karkeren Kurdistan, Euskadi ta Askatasuna and the Baluchistan Liberation Army, and groups in other places, too. That is a fair point that we should perhaps take up through the usual channels.

David Heath: I just want to emphasise—for the benefit of the business managers, really—that there is no reason why having separate orders should extend the time needed for debate, because the orders could be taken together and discussed in parallel.

Tony McNulty: I take that point, and the point that the hon. Gentleman made about the possibility of there being real contention about just one of four or five groups on a list, and that is entirely fair.
	On why it supposedly took so long to proscribe Jammat-ul Mujahideen Bangladesh and Tehrik Nefaz-e Shari'at Muhammadi, we take such decisions seriously, and there is due process. To describe a period of a little under two years for each group as anything other than the result of our being rigorous and doing things in an appropriate time frame is a bit unfair. Although one of the groups did come to our notice some five years before then, it was its key activities in 2005 that prompted concerns.
	With all those caveats, and bearing in mind the point about keeping Hizb ut-Tahrir under review, and the point about giving further consideration to the process of the House—I think that that is the issue, rather than the legal process—I commend the order to the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2007, which was laid before this House on 2nd July, be approved.

Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Bill  [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Bridget Prentice: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	May I begin by commending the work done in the other place by Lord Lester, who introduced the Bill? I pay tribute to him for his initial work on the Bill, and thank him for his support for the Government's amendments and redrafting. The Bill was the subject of much debate in the other place, and it comes to us changed for the better. I hope it will gain similar support in this House as it is much needed if we are to help the young women and, indeed, some men who find themselves in extremely threatening circumstances.
	Above all, the Bill's aim is to offer protection to those faced with forced marriage, whether they are children, teenagers or adults, regardless of background, race or religion. It also offers protection to people who have already been forced into a marriage. As many Members will be aware, the forced marriage unit, which is jointly sponsored by the Home Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, does tremendous work in developing Government policy on the subject. It co-ordinates outreach projects and it provides support and information to individuals who are at risk. It receives about 5,000 calls for general advice and it handles about 300 cases a year.
	Last year, the Metropolitan police recorded 518 incidents related to forced marriage, so the numbers involved may not be great, but they are significant, and it is likely that many more victims suffer in silence. As well as offering protection to people who are in danger of being forced into marriage, we hope that the Bill will act as a deterrent, sending out a clear message that forced marriage will not be tolerated in our democracy.
	The Bill offers civil remedies to those seeking protection from forced marriage. We consulted in 2005 on whether to introduce a criminal offence for forced marriage, but the response from stakeholders and voluntary groups with great experience of such issues was that criminalising it might be seen to target and stigmatise certain ethnic and religious communities, and that criminalisation would simply drive the practice underground, making the situation even worse for victims.

Philip Davies: Everybody in the House will support measures to tackle forced marriage, which is appalling, and I should like to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer), who has done an awful lot in the House to highlight the issue. Will the Minister explain which stakeholders she has spoken to, because people are concerned that the Bill will not make forced marriage a criminal offence?

Bridget Prentice: We spoke to a variety of organisations that work with women, a number of faith groups and a series of organisations that have an interest, so the consultation was comprehensive. The hon. Gentleman is right to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer), which I intend to do later in my contribution.
	It is important that victims get help to rebuild their lives and, where possible, to ensure that they have an ongoing relationship with their family. One of the reasons many voluntary organisations were concerned about criminalisation was that it might build a wall between the victim and their family that would be impossible to breach. This Bill is part of much wider programme that involves raising awareness of the problem of forced marriage and protecting women's rights in that area.
	The forced marriage unit has produced a handbook that provides practical support to survivors. It is also part-funding a pilot survivors network to provide emotional support to those who survive forced marriage. We are undertaking a great deal of publicity, outreach and awareness-raising work in key communities, which involves speaking at around 75 events every year. There has been a national publicity campaign involving radio, TV and the national and local press.
	Like the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley, who secured an Adjournment debate on the subject back in 1999. Since then, she has worked tirelessly to bring about changes in the legislation to offer protection to victims. I hope that this Bill and the package of work undertaken by the forced marriage unit will stop the wicked practice of forced marriage.
	The Bill gives the courts a wide discretion to deal flexibly and sensitively with the circumstances of each individual case, employing civil remedies that will offer protection to victims without criminalising members of their family. The new provisions take the form of a new part 4A of the Family Law Act 1996, placing them firmly in the wider context of domestic violence and family proceedings generally. That was the wish of Lord Lester, who wanted the provisions to be part of the family law package.
	The type of orders that we envisage being made under the Bill are ones prohibiting violence or requiring certain steps, such as requiring a person to surrender a passport, for as long as such measures are appropriate to protect the victim. The Bill does not define what actions would constitute force in those circumstances, but it provides that that includes coercion by threats or the use of psychological pressure. The force may not even be directed against the victim, because it can be indirectly aimed at a third party or directed against the perpetrator themselves. For example, a person attempting to force a marriage may threaten to harm a member of the victim's family or even himself or herself should the victim not agree to go ahead with the marriage. That avoids narrow definitions of behaviour, which might be too restrictive, and gives the courts powers to offer protection to victims in a wide range of circumstances. Victims may have been subject to a variety of pressures aimed at forcing them into marrying without their free and full consent.
	An important aspect of the Bill is that it enables third parties to apply for orders on behalf of victims. Many people have asked me about the point that many victims are afraid to come forward. The Bill recognises that and includes an essential provision that offers protection to women who fear making an application because of intimidation, or even because they have been imprisoned against their will. The Bill allows a "relevant third party" to apply for a protection order on behalf of a victim. A "relevant third party" is an individual or organisation that has been designated as such by the Lord Chancellor. Other third parties—individuals or groups that are not so designated—would need to obtain leave from the court before their application could be made. That provision is designed to minimise the risk of a third party abusing the process. The wishes and feelings of the victim will be a vital consideration for the courts in dealing with third-party applications.

Dominic Grieve: Although the Minister is right that we do not want to see an abuse of the process, the measure that she has just outlined is important, because it allows a near relative to make an application if they are secure in the knowledge that somebody is being forced into a marriage.

Bridget Prentice: The hon. Gentleman is right. Working together has produced a Bill that includes that third pillar of protection for the victim.

David Heath: It is enormously to the credit of the Government and the Conservative Opposition that they have been prepared to take forward the Bill introduced by my noble Friend Lord Lester. We are grateful for the interest that has been shown—it has been a shared endeavour across the House.

Bridget Prentice: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those kind and positive words. I am sure that all hon. Members on both sides of the House will work together to ensure that the Bill has a safe and smooth passage. We have always been concerned about the issue. Some time ago, we considered whether criminalisation would be appropriate. However, when Lord Lester introduced his private Member's Bill, it seemed appropriate to join together.
	The Bill provides that the court must attach a power of arrest to an order, if it considers that the respondent has used or threatened violence against the victim, a third party or the respondent themselves. The ability for the court to attach a power of arrest to injunctions will provide a further important protection for women in those circumstances and it will act as a strong deterrent to further action for those covered by the order. Powers of arrest may also be attached to orders addressed not only to named respondents, but to third parties. That means that all orders will be capable of being effectively enforced by a power of arrest, if appropriate.
	The Bill provides parallel provisions for Northern Ireland. Although incidents of forced marriage are not common in Northern Ireland, I hope that hon. Members agree that extending these important provisions to Northern Ireland sends out an important signal about the seriousness with which we take the problem.
	Before concluding, I want to say a few words about the Bill's implementation. As with any legislation, implementation will require a significant programme of work. The first task will be to develop the necessary court rules, which will implement the procedure for dealing with those cases. The Department will take forward drafting of the rules and necessary court forms in conjunction with the family procedure rule committee.
	The cost of court proceedings under part 4A in the form of court fees must also be set. I know that court fees are always a matter of concern in this House and the other place, and I want to reassure hon. Members that the Government are committed to ensuring that vulnerable people who need protection from the courts, but who do not have the means to pay, have access to justice. The intention is that the court fees and eligibility for legal aid will follow the models that are in place in relation to applications for non-molestation and occupation orders under part 4 of the Family Law Act 1996. That means that those on low incomes will be exempt from paying a court fee on the issuing of their applications.

Humfrey Malins: Will the Minister confirm that legal aid will be available not only to an applicant, but to a respondent?

Bridget Prentice: A respondent will, of course, be eligible for legal aid in the usual way.
	The need for proper training and guidance on the issue of forced marriage and on the particular provisions included in this legislation has been rightly identified as key to ensuring that the Bill is implemented successfully and to tackling the problem of forced marriage. In the past year, the forced marriage unit—we are the only country in the world that has a forced marriage unit, so it is unique—has issued guidance to health professionals and undertaken an awareness-raising campaign for registrars. Guidance was issued to social workers in 2004, followed by guidance for the police and for teachers in 2005. We expect that revised guidance will go out for social workers before the end of this year.
	The Bill provides a power for the Secretary of State to issue guidance on the Bill and on the issue of forced marriage generally. That will enable us to republish the existing guidance in order to put it on a statutory footing. It is anticipated that future guidance issued by the FMU will usually be published under the new power.
	It is anticipated that the Judicial Studies Board, which is responsible for judicial training, will undertake the necessary training for judges in these courts. We will discuss with the JSB the cost of training and how to incorporate the training that it considers necessary within the existing provisions. Training for court staff will be a matter for my Department and for Her Majesty's Courts Service as standard practice for the implementation of any new legislation affecting the courts. We will also consider with HMCS the provision of interpreters for women in forced marriages as part of the implementation programme.
	It is clear that the House is already very supportive of the Bill. I hope that I have given hon. Members a sense of the plans that are in place to ensure that this extremely important piece of legislation is implemented as speedily as possible so that we can take another important step forward in tackling the harmful practice of forced marriage and protecting the rights of women, in particular, but of all individuals to choose whom and when to marry. I commend the Bill to the House.

Dominic Grieve: I welcome the Minister's remarks and her presentation of the Bill. As she will be aware, the Bill commands universal support across the House. It started in another place when it was introduced by Lord Lester as a private Member's Bill. As the chances of a private Member's Bill from the other place getting through this House are not usually very good—not because of any obstruction but simply because they tend to come at the very bottom of the Order Paper in private Members' business—we felt it incumbent on ourselves, as we took the matter so seriously, to ask for time for it to be dealt with, even at the cost of Opposition debating time. We are absolutely delighted to have been able to do that. We are also delighted that the Government responded positively to our proposal and that we have been able to co-operate with the Liberal Democrats on this matter.
	Article 16(2) of the universal declaration of human rights says:
	"Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses."
	That is an aspiration that most people in this country might well assume to be commonplace, but the unfortunate reality is that there is ample evidence that it is not. The Minister referred to the number of calls received by the forced marriage unit—about 5,000 a year—and the identification of some 300 cases that appeared to be ascertained and 518 matters that had been brought to the attention of the Metropolitan police. Of course, in so many of these matters it is very difficult to know exactly what the scale of the problem may be. Speaking on the basis of my constituency experience in an area that might not necessarily be associated with the demographic profile that might lend itself to this, I think that there is ample evidence that people are contracting marriages, especially abroad, where a degree of coercion appears to be involved in the transaction, if I may call it that.

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend highlights one of the main problems. Does he agree that it might help to reduce instances of forced marriage if the age at which people were allowed to be brought into this country on a marriage visa was increased from 18 to 21?

Dominic Grieve: My hon. Friend raises a perfectly sensible point, which might also go to the question of what the general age of consent for entering into marriage should be. He is fully entitled to want to have those matters considered, although they are rather wider than those that we are considering. Historically in this country, at least until the 19th century, marriages were contracted at younger ages than today. Some argue that 16 is too young, while others say that it is right, particularly given the earlier maturity of young people. It is not an issue on which I would wish to pronounce, but it is a legitimate one.
	Coerced marriage involves grey areas. Some people marry under emotional pressure—that may happen frequently in this country, let alone abroad—and may come to regret it afterwards. We must be reasonably pragmatic in our approach. Nevertheless, it is clear that there are some stunning and horrifying cases of individuals who are coerced into marriage. We cannot escape the fact that different cultures have different approaches to marriage. Therefore, as our country has become more multicultural, different examples of coerced marriage have entered into our society—although it would be wrong to suggest that it has not been present here, too, throughout our history.

Keith Vaz: The hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) inadvertently focused on the role of entry clearance officers and entry clearance managers. Clearly, legislation is very important and we support the Bill. However, should we not also consider an administrative way of dealing with the issue? ECOs and ECMs abroad should be wary when an application is made and the applicant is too afraid to say that it is a forced marriage, because if she does it then appears in the explanatory statement when it is sent to London and everyone knows that she has scuppered her own application.

Dominic Grieve: The right hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point that I was going to deal with a little later. It is one area that I think we might like to consider a bit further in Committee, if possible. I shall explain in a moment what I had in mind; other hon. Members might have different ideas.
	I do not wish to take up the House's time on an issue on which there is so much consensus, but I should like to say a couple of things about the Bill. As originally introduced by Lord Lester, it was a new piece of legislation. Since the Government's helpful intervention, it has, in essence, been turned into an amendment of the Family Law Act 1996. There was great merit in that approach. Lord Lester had the ideas and set them out on paper, but translating them into detailed court powers is a rather more complicated process—I see the Minister smiling in agreement—and the 1996 Act provided the necessary mechanisms. Under the powers set out in new sections 63F, 63G, 63H, 63I and so on, we now have a panoply of court powers that were not originally provided for in Lord Lester's Bill, and which will be very useful.
	That brings me to what my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) said about whether criminal sanctions are required. That is an important issue. If somebody is forced into marriage, and it can be shown to the criminal standard of proof that that is what has happened, there is no doubt that a great range of criminal offences may have been committed, depending on the circumstances, such as blackmail, threats to kill, assault, false imprisonment, child abduction, kidnapping or sexual offences. However, the problem is that it is questionable whether putting in a criminal standard of proof will get a better result, particularly where somebody is extremely unwilling to come forward. The merit of the way in which this has been approached is that, first, it will encourage people who have been forced into marriages to come forward, and secondly, it allows the courts much greater flexibility to look in the round at what is going on—for example, to listen to a relative or friend who comes forward and says, "I think this is a forced marriage, as the person is clearly not happy about it", and then do something practical about it. If it becomes clear, in the course of all that, that a criminal offence has been committed, I have no doubt that the opportunity for prosecution may still ensue. My hon. Friend needs to bear in mind the question of whether having a criminal offence of forced marriage would leave us with some serious definitional problems and then the problem of proving to the requisite standard that that is what happened.

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend makes a very powerful case and, as he knows, I respect his opinion hugely. Does he agree, however, that a stated and clear criminal offence in this area may well deter people so that such things do not happen in the first place? A criminal offence would send a powerful and important message to people that such activity is not tolerated in this country.

Dominic Grieve: Criminalisation sends out a powerful message, but the question is whether a criminal offence would be workable. If in many cases where an attempt is made to prosecute the criminal offence becomes impossible to prove, people will start to disregard it or treat it with contempt. The merit of Lord Lester's approach—derived from a lot of consultation and adopted by the Government—is that it maximises the possibility of people coming forward. After all, it is currently true that individuals can come forward. Somebody who has been coerced into a marriage in India, for example, and comes to this country would probably be able to secure a decree of nullity if they so wanted, as it exists today. The difficulty is that that is not happening.
	We cannot achieve perfection in such matters, but in so far as we can see a way forward, what is proposed in the Bill maximises the chances of a forced marriage coming to the attention of the courts and of something being done about it. I am sure that many will still slip through the net, but some will end up in prosecution. If someone is prepared to come forward and say that they were, effectively, kidnapped before the marriage, that may provide a powerful ability to do something about it.
	The other problem my hon. Friend must bear in mind is that some such marriages may have been contracted abroad. In this country, there is a wide degree of recognition of foreign marriages on the whole, even if they do not necessarily comply with our regulations. That raises a number of problems that the legislation has probably successfully addressed, as far as I can see—we shall look at the matter more closely in Committee.
	I do not want to take up the House's time; there is no point in repeating what the Minister said when I agree with every word she has spoken. To return to the important point of the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), I will simply say that we know that the majority—not necessarily all—of these marriages often take place abroad. One reason for that is that any marriage in this country has to undergo the scrutiny of the registrar of marriage, or a person who has been licensed as such, who must see both parties and ascertain consent.
	We shall try to return to this matter in Committee—the Bill largely amends the Family Law Act 1996, so that may cause problems—but I wonder whether there should be a system of compulsory re-registration of foreign marriages when someone comes from abroad, so that the facts of the marriage and the consent of the parties can be ascertained. That would go a little further, but it might deal with some of the problems raised by the right hon. Member for Leicester, East about executive officers in consulates who give out visas and often find it difficult to be satisfied that consent has been given.

Keith Vaz: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but there is a simple way round this problem. Such officers could accept a confidential statement made by the applicant because they would interview the applicant separately, even though the spouse might be sitting outside, having flown from the United Kingdom, and that would not be disclosable—if there were an appeal, it is disclosable only to the judge. That is one way round the problem. There is an administrative way to help the situation that would prevent the spouse having to enter the country against their will in the first place.

Dominic Grieve: The right hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. I do not know whether he will have the opportunity to serve on the Committee dealing with the Bill.

Keith Vaz: indicated dissent.

Dominic Grieve: Notwithstanding that, I hope that we will consider those issues; it is the one area that I would like to look at in Committee. Given that I am standing at the Dispatch Box, the right hon. Gentleman can infer that it is likely to fall to me to do the job.
	With those thoughts in mind, I would like to thank the Government for their approach to the matter. I say again how pleased and privileged we are to help to ensure that the Bill passes through the House. I look forward to Committee, where we can see whether there are any—probably minor—improvements that can be made to it.

Chris McCafferty: The word "delighted" would be inappropriate, but I am certainly pleased to speak about the Bill because forced and child marriages constitute serious and recurrent violations of human rights, and the rights of the child. In Britain, the root causes of this practice lie mainly in the tendency for traditions to become fossilised in migrant communities that are often more conservative than those remaining in home countries. Let us face it, the practice occurs predominantly in Muslim communities, but also in others.
	It is almost entirely women and girls who are subjected to this infringement of their personal liberty, but men may also be forced to marry—for example, when young men display gay tendencies, which is not acceptable in their community. It is quite outrageous that under the cloak of "respect" for the culture and traditions of certain communities, some authorities tolerate forced marriages, even though such marriages violate the fundamental rights of each and every victim. It is a case not of stigmatising Islam, but of saying that tolerance or feeling for culture cannot serve as an excuse for condoning such marriages, or for hiding behind moral blindness.

Keith Vaz: I welcome the way in which my hon. Friend has put her arguments, and she is at the forefront of campaigns to bring religions together. Does she agree, however, that when the Bill becomes an Act, it will be important for us to raise awareness in the community to make people aware of its provisions and effects?

Chris McCafferty: I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend, who makes a very valid, and crucial, point. Legislation is only a part of the whole. Education and consultation of the communities involved is important; they must be brought on board. That is of paramount importance.
	Forced marriage is defined as the union of two persons, at least one of whom has not given their free and full consent to the marriage. Arranged marriage, by contrast, is typified by the intervention of someone outside the future couple—usually the parents of the future spouses or a broker. However, the ultimate choice of accepting the arrangement rests with each of the future spouses. It can, of course, be difficult to ascertain how far it is possible for them to choose and make up their minds in a properly informed manner because the family environment can be so powerful that choice is induced by upbringing or deference to custom.
	Forced marriage is chiefly characterised by the absence of consent. In other words, one future spouse, or both, does not have the choice of opting out because the family resorts to coercive methods, such as emotional blackmail, physical duress, violence or even abduction, confinement and confiscation of official papers, such as passports. For practical purposes, the future spouses have no possibility of choosing whether or not to marry.
	Forced marriage, when consummated—as it is in the vast majority of cases—is primarily an act of rape. The young bride does not have the freedom to accept or refuse sexual relations or to exercise her reproductive rights. She must submit. Indeed, a catalogue of elementary and fundamental rights are simply trampled underfoot. Deprivation of happiness and infliction of violence upon them are often the victims' daily lot. Forced marriage is a modern-day form of slavery. From "rape" to "wrongful seclusion", no terms are strong enough to condemn those repeated violations of human rights.
	The issue of forced marriage hinges on the delicate balance between respect for cultural diversity and respect for human rights. The Government now have an active duty to enforce human rights in this country. Appropriate legislation is necessary but, unfortunately, it is not sufficient to end those undesirable situations. We must also make significant other efforts to guard against such marriages.
	In that context—for once, I find myself in slight agreement with Conservative Members—I ask the Government to consider seriously raising the age at which a young person can sponsor a potential spouse to come and live in Britain not to 21 but to 23. That would allow vulnerable youngsters time to receive a full education and mature into young adults. It would make it easier for forced marriages to be prevented, detected and annulled.
	The Bill's central purpose is to provide protection to those at risk of forced marriage and recourse for those who have already been forced into such a marriage. I hope that it will help facilitate the annulment of forced marriages, and perhaps lead even to their automatic annulment. Perhaps the Under-Secretary can tell us whether there will be a time scale for courts to investigate and rule on an application for annulment of a forced marriage.
	Naturally, the Bill does not prohibit arranged marriages, when genuine consent exists on both sides. Will the Government therefore expand age-appropriate prevention campaigns, perhaps building on the wonderful MissDorothy.co.uk website, to ensure that young people know the difference between forced and arranged marriages? Such campaigns could inform them of their rights, especially the right to make up one's own mind about marriage and the right to choose one's future partner. It could also inform persons under threat of forced marriage of the practical steps that can be taken to forestall such a marriage, such as placing one's passport in safe keeping or lodging a complaint, for example, of theft of papers, in the event of confiscation.
	I would have preferred forced marriage to be made a criminal offence because that would enable the police and social services to intervene more readily in forced marriage and its connection to honour-based violence, which is an increasing menace in this country. However, I am delighted that the Government are supporting the Bill, which will provide some protection to those at risk of forced marriage and recourse for those who have already been forced into such a marriage.
	The Bill will change the law to enable courts to order injunctions to prevent forced marriages and, in some cases, to attach powers of arrest if those orders are breached. If used properly, it will become a powerful and useful new tool for those who try to protect the victims of forced marriage.
	Forced marriage is an abuse of fundamental human rights. The Bill sends out a clear message that it involves serious wrongdoing and that we will not tolerate it. The Bill creates a civil wrong of forced marriage. I accept that it is a serious attempt to provide suitable remedies for victims and I respect the conclusion of the recent Government consultation that a new criminal offence would not be helpful.
	The Bill is in keeping with international human rights standards, including: the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women—CEDAW; the UN convention on consent to marriage; the minimum age for marriage; the registration of marriages, and many other treaties to which the UK is a party.
	I believe that primary legislation using civil remedies will contribute towards changing public opinion, perception and practice, and will have a strong deterrent effect. It will help victims defend themselves against forced marriage. It will empower young people with more tools to negotiate with their parents. In some cases, it will help parents who face pressure from their relatives. It will provide a victim-centred remedy, allowing victims to retain control over the process.
	The Bill acknowledges the increasing and inhumane practice of forced marriage and its devastating impact on the lives of many young women and some young men. Forced marriage is a culturally sensitive issue, but cultural practices should be sacrosanct only when they do not militate against human rights. Nothing is more important than an individual's basic human rights. We must ensure that the measure is only the beginning of the process of making forced marriage socially unacceptable as well as illegal.

Jo Swinson: I am delighted to give Liberal Democrat support to the Bill. My noble Friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill, who is a great champion of such issues, introduced the measure in the other place. It is to the Government's credit that they adopted it, and I want to place on record my thanks and appreciation to them for that and for, with Conservative support, providing parliamentary time to ensure that it reaches the statute book. It is a good example of consensual, cross-party working to tackle an appalling problem.
	The concept of marriage is one of an equal and loving union and a commitment that is entered into willingly. If the commitment is forced, it is no longer marriage but can be tantamount to a prison sentence for the victim. As we have heard, forced marriage can lead to horrendous crimes: abduction; rape—often repeated rape; honour killings and other violence. Some victims are effectively turned into domestic or sexual slaves.
	Although laws that are already on the statute book could be used to punish people who force someone into marriage, waiting until the crimes are committed before we act is too late. The Bill is therefore essential. "Prevention is better than cure" is an old adage; it is much better to stop such marriages happening.
	It is important to acknowledge that the coercion does not need to be physical but can be psychological. The huge psychological pressure that can be put on an individual and the stress that that causes can lead to a forced marriage.
	There is currently no offence of forced marriage and that must be remedied. As we have heard, the forced marriage unit processes about 300 cases a year and has made great progress in tackling the problem. However, that is not enough to get to grips with the matter. Those 300 cases may be the tip of the iceberg—many go unreported. We therefore hope that, with publicity and education awareness of the legislation, more individuals will be encouraged to come forward.
	That leads me to consider whether the offence should be criminal or civil—a point that the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) raised. Although much discussion and debate has taken place, the civil route is the right approach. It is vital not to discourage people from coming forward, which could happen if they felt that they were effectively criminalising members of their family. Although the Bill does not create a criminal offence, we must recognise that it provides for powers of arrest, so effective action can be taken if a forced marriage protection order is broken.
	The application by a third party is a vital element of the Bill, especially—though not only—when children are involved. We cannot expect those who are under age to have full cognisance of the different legal options at their disposal and we must rely on others to look after them and highlight the matter to the courts.
	Support for the Bill comes from a wide range of organisations, which speaks volumes. They include: the Association of Chief Police Officers, Liberty, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Newham Asian Women's Project, Rights of Women, Southall Black Sisters, the three main parties in the House, and, I am sure, many other political organisations. It is welcome to see so much support for tackling the issue.
	I should like to touch on the point that the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Chris McCafferty) made about the difference between forced and arranged marriages. We must be clear about that distinction. The regulatory impact assessment identified a potential risk that the Bill would disproportionately impact on black and minority ethnic communities and might be interpreted as a cultural criticism of them. That is why we must be clear that forced marriage is an abuse of human rights and can never be acceptable. By contrast, arranged marriages are a union between two consenting adults and have taken place for centuries, across all cultures.
	Indeed, we do not need to go back very far in British history to see many examples of arranged marriages, particularly among members of the aristocracy and the upper classes. I must confess that I am quite a fan of Jane Austen's novels. One only has to read "Pride and Prejudice" to find characters such as Mrs. Bennet who are masters of arranged marriages. Arranged marriages have taken place for a long time and, although they have more recently become less common in British culture, they obviously still happen in our south Asian communities.
	I recently met a group of young Asian women in my constituency and we discussed a wide range of topics. The issue of arranged marriages came up, on which I was genuinely interested to listen to their views. They likened the process to an introduction service or a dating agency almost, with their parents making the first move so that they did not have to. They talked about arranged marriages in an incredibly relaxed way, because no pressure would be put on them to marry someone whom they did not want to marry. In fact, they welcomed arranged marriages as something valuable.
	The other point that those young women raised with me—it was their major concern and is why it is so important to draw the distinction between forced and arranged marriages—was the continued negative portrayal of British Asian communities, particularly Muslims, in the British media. It is therefore important that we do not allow forced and arranged marriages to be confused. If that happened, the confusion could be used in the media, which would create divisions within our communities, when we need to do the opposite. We should also be careful not to fall into the trap of thinking that forced marriages are an issue only in Asian communities. As the Minister pointed out, the victims can come from all racial and religious groups, from all ages and from all parts of the country.
	I should like to raise the issue of those victims who are children or who have learning difficulties. There is a problem with those with learning difficulties being forced into marriage, whether it is done to secure a visa or is related to their learning difficulty, in order to create financial security or obtain a full-time carer for them.

Dominic Grieve: I have had direct experience of that. One of the reasons for the practice is simply cultural, on the assumption that all women should be married. There is a school in my constituency for children with learning disabilities. I am afraid that there is a consistent pattern of girls being removed at the age of 16 to be sent to the Indian subcontinent—if that is where they originate from—to be married, even though many of them probably have little understanding of what they are going to do.

Jo Swinson: The hon. Gentleman raises an important and worrying issue. What is welcome in the Bill is that the wishes and feelings of the victims will be considered by the courts in determining whether to issue a forced marriage protection order. However, there is a possible difficulty, in that the participation of people with learning disabilities in court is often hampered by inadequate provision to assist them. Sometimes it is even assumed that they cannot give evidence, when in fact the proper support to enable that can be provided. The use of intermediaries can be one way round for individuals in those circumstances, including children, to ensure that the court can properly understand the victim's wishes. Other measures are available, under the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999. Incorporating such measures at the discretion of the judge might be helpful in better understanding the wishes of the victim. I should be interested to know the views of the Government on that issue, which could be explored further in Committee. Finding a solution would be welcome and would ensure that all the victims had their views heard adequately.
	Before drawing my remarks to a close, I should like briefly to mention Scotland. The legislation will apply to England, Wales and Northern Ireland only, but the problem clearly affects people throughout the UK. The forced marriage unit deals with cases in Scotland, because that is where the centre of excellence and expertise is. In fact, the consultation in 2005 was run jointly by the UK Government and the Scottish Executive. The highest number of responses were from London and Scotland, so forced marriage is obviously an issue there. Will the Minister discuss the issue with her counterpart in the Scottish Executive? The view was expressed in the debate on the Bill in the other place that in passing the legislation we would be sending a powerful message to countries throughout the world about how the issue can be dealt with and forced marriages prevented, in the hope that other legislatures might adopt similar proposals.

Bridget Prentice: I hope that I can give the hon. Lady some assurance by saying that we will discuss the issue with the Scottish Executive. My understanding is that they hope to introduce similar legislation later this year, and we will certainly encourage them to do so.

Jo Swinson: I thank the Minister very much and am pleased greatly by that intervention. I have been discussing the issue with my colleagues, although obviously the Scottish Parliament is in recess at the moment.

Philip Davies: Part-timers.

Jo Swinson: Members of the Scottish Parliament do come back rather earlier—the holiday season is rather different in Scotland. However, it will certainly be helpful if the provisions can be extended north of the border, too. No doubt the experience and expertise of the forced marriage unit will be very welcome in dealing with the legislation in Scotland and in ensuring that Scottish victims are also protected.
	In conclusion, the Bill is long overdue. It is urgently needed to tackle a horrific problem. As well as sending out a clear signal about the unacceptability of forced marriages, the Bill will give those at risk of becoming victims access to tools to prevent them from happening, rather than waiting for the crime to be committed, because at that stage the control that is wielded over many victims' lives makes access to justice all but impossible. It is excellent that the Government have adopted the Bill and it is wonderful that the Conservatives support it. The Liberal Democrats will also give it our wholehearted support.

Margaret Moran: I, too, welcome the Bill, which has unanimous support throughout the House. However, I was extremely worried by the original Bill, which Lord Lester introduced in another place, and vigorously opposed it. I did not do so because forced marriage is not a serious crime—we all acknowledge that it is—but because I know from my constituency case work that to criminalise it in its own right would be to alienate and divide families. The worst thing that we could do to a victim or survivor of a forced marriage would be permanently to separate her—it is more than often a her—from her family and support networks, and that was what the original Bill would have done. That would be incredibly divisive and would leave the survivor of a forced marriage with nowhere to turn and with inadequate support. That is a deeply damaging proposal for anyone in that position.

Dominic Grieve: I hope that the hon. Lady will excuse my intervention but, while I am absolutely satisfied that the Bill has been substantially improved, I can assure her that the original draft, as presented in the House of Lords, did not create a criminal offence.

Margaret Moran: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention. I am referring to the earliest discussions on the issue of forced marriage, which certainly did refer to criminalisation, to which many of the groups that the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) mentioned were also deeply opposed. Indeed, there was quite a consensus among Refuge, Southall Black Sisters and others that a criminal offence of forced marriage was simply not necessary.
	Another problem was that creating a criminal offence would simply add to the existing list of criminal offences that can be applied in such circumstances. As the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) said, action can be taken under the Marriage Act 1994. Action can also be taken against kidnapping, child abduction, false imprisonment, and assault and battery under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, against threats to kill under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, against child cruelty under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, against blackmail, and so on. Happily, the Government have introduced many of those measures since 1997. However, the fact that victims and survivors of forced marriages are not using many of those measures is an indication that they were not totally effective in tackling the issue. Civil action is therefore most welcome.
	I commend the Government on the fact that a lot of work has already been done in the Home Office and the Foreign Office, including the establishment of the forced marriage unit and the issuing of extensive guidance to the police, to education and social services professionals and, most recently, to health professionals. That guidance is excellent, but we need to test how well it is known, enforced and monitored. We also need to ensure that it applies across all public services, including housing and the whole range of local government services, as well as the whole of the criminal justice system.
	Another reason I believe that the Bill represents a more appropriate approach is that we need to take a more co-ordinated and holistic approach to violence against women. Many of the issues that we are dealing with here are parallel and integral to tackling domestic violence and violence against women across the piece, including rape, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley referred.
	The issues involved include power relations, protection—which is very much the aim of the Bill—and prevention. The measures on third-party applications and legal aid, and the provisions to enable courts to issue injunctions to prevent repeat offences are most welcome. We also need to ensure that the other "P", provision, is dealt with. We must ensure that there are appropriate sources—I stress the word "appropriate"—of support and refuge for the survivors of forced marriage, just as we need better and more adequate protection for those surviving domestic violence. There is a huge gap in that provision at the moment, and I hope that Ministers will look at that as part of the implementation of the Bill.
	The Bill will allow survivors to come forward more easily. It will also enable us to help them to address the issue. I know from my casework the absolute despair experienced by forced marriage victims who can find nowhere to turn. The incredible family networks, particularly among the Pakistani, Kashmiri and Bangladeshi communities in my constituency, are a source of huge strength, but in circumstances such as these, they are a source of great division and despair because there is almost no one who is unknown to the extended family and friends to whom a victim or survivor can turn in a moment of crisis. We need to ensure that we establish appropriate, independent sources of support in these communities. They do not exist at the moment.
	I want to refer to a pilot that is one of three UK-wide national pilots on forced marriage. It is being run from my office. How extraordinary is that? I am pleased to say that it is Home Office funded, but it is being run from my office because, despite the size of the Pakistani, Kashmiri and Bangladeshi communities in my constituency, there was nowhere for survivors of forced marriage to turn for independent advice and support, where they would not be known and where their stories would not be relayed to other members of their community.
	I want to thank the Home Office, Equalities Networks—a social enterprise based in my constituency that is helping to run the pilot programme—and particularly Dr. Nazia Khanum, who wrote the reports to which I will refer in a moment. During the pilot programme, forced marriage survivors talked to other victims and survivors of forced marriage. It has been most impressive. However, although it started out as one of three Home Office-funded pilots, ours is the only one still in existence. Sadly, the other two have gone by the wayside, and Ministers need to learn lessons about why that happened. Those pilots were extremely valuable, but, like the pilot that is being run from my office, they had insufficient resources to continue, and we risk losing the lessons that we have learned. We were originally told that the pilots would be evaluated and rolled out across the UK, but it has all gone terribly quiet.
	So, while I commend the measures in the Bill, I believe that we must address the serious issue of matching our words and our deeds to ensure that survivors get the support and resources that they need. We must work with the communities that continue, in some cases, to perpetrate this serious crime to ensure that they understand how seriously we take the matter. More importantly, they must also understand that we are working with them to ensure that they have the education and support to break away from the often intense cultural pressures that exist in some communities. We should never underestimate the intense pressures and obligations that some families feel to bring a bride over from Kotli, or from Sylhet in Bangladesh. These families need help to enable them to be strong enough to say that their daughters or sons should not be put through some of the worst instances that we have seen.
	The pilot to which I have referred involves producing a research report to examine the extent of the problem. As other Members have said, it is difficult to estimate the extent of the problem, despite the work of the forced marriage unit, or to determine whether we are seeing just the tip of the iceberg. A second aspect of the pilot involves a project called Changing Lives, which works to enable young people—men and women—in the communities that might be subject to forced marriage to advocate within their own communities. This means that people will not just be talking to the "usual suspects", or the so-called community leaders. We are using young people to educate and support other young people. The third phase, which we are coming to at the moment, involves training key actors in the local community—including deliverers of public services such as the local authority, colleges and other educational institutions—who are likely to come into contact with forced marriage victims so that they can identify and support them where necessary.
	Extensive research was undertaken with not only individual victims and survivors, but voluntary and community groups, and one of the most astonishing things that we learned was that local community groups were receiving more than 300 approaches a year on this issue in my constituency alone. That is an enormous figure when seen in the context of what the forced marriage unit is reporting. Obviously, some duplicate reporting could be involved, as forced marriage survivors are forced to go from one agency or community support organisation to another. It is therefore impossible to gauge the exact extent of the problem, but 300 is still, by any standards, a very large number.
	The report found that very few of the individual forced marriage survivors or the agencies coming into contact with them had any knowledge of the forced marriage unit. It also found that they had very little awareness of the good work being done by the Home Office and the Foreign Office, and little or no awareness of where to go for support. There was certainly no knowledge of any counselling provision being available. There is a huge chasm between those who are experiencing the problem and the work, albeit good work, that the Government are doing. We need to bridge that gap urgently.
	Another issue that arose was a little more controversial. Many of those involved in the report felt that the definition of "forced marriage" should include false marriages. This takes us into more difficult territory. There were many examples of young men and women being told that they were to marry a certain person, or a certain type of person, only to find that the person they were marrying was wholly different. In one case, someone with severe disabilities—not that that should be an impairment—was falsely represented as the person to whom someone was about to be married. Many of the people referred to in the report felt that being coerced into marriage on the basis of false information was almost as bad as being coerced on the basis of no information at all, so they wanted the definition to be extended. They also felt that there was a need for a victim support network to combat isolation and to share experience and spread awareness of the options available. They wanted a building up of capacity in the community and voluntary sector to provide counselling services and guidance where needed. Also important to them was mentoring or partnering of people who have experienced forced marriages with those in danger of experiencing them or those who fear that their families might push them in that direction.
	What are the lessons from the project so far? All I have been able to do in the time available is to provide a taste of the report, which will be published shortly. We learned that there is an urgent need for more preventive measures through early detection. We need to work with our schools and colleges, as well as with GPs to identify where forced marriage is likely to occur. Health visitors, social workers and teachers can also be involved. They need to be able to recognise the signs and ask the appropriate and culturally sensitive questions when a young man or woman is in danger of being forced into this situation.
	Appropriate training is important so that all those across the public sector and the criminal justice system can understand the issues. I believe that it should be accredited training, as I have already encountered an individual, purporting to be an organisation, claiming to be running forced marriage training, yet there appears to be no substance or understanding behind it. We need to ensure that any training is properly accredited and monitored, while also ensuring that citizenship and English language classes are maintained. In some areas, they have effectively been taken away from some of the women when they do not go ahead with gaining any qualifications. One of the key barriers is language, yet we are depriving some women of the very means of articulating their problem and their desperation. That needs to be looked at again. We need to ensure that we are empowering these women and we need more funding and access to leadership courses for women who are likely to be in this position.
	Immigration issues—the hon. Member for Beaconsfield dealt with some of them—are also important. I often see in my constituency surgeries young men and women who have been deprived of permanent residence in this country by their partner's refusal to sign the appropriate papers. I encounter a whole range of issues where people are forced to sign for permanent residence under the immigration rules under coercion. When that fact is raised with the immigration authorities, the answer is often, "There is nothing we can do about it now, because the person signed the paper"—regardless of the fact that it was done under duress. A whole tranche of immigration issues need to be addressed.
	We need a survivor's network. My project suggested to the Home Office a follow-on project called "Forced Marriage Online", whereby survivors could give each other advice and support anonymously. More particularly, we could learn more about the circumstances of these victims and survivors in a way that would be safe for them while helping to inform us. We simply do not know enough about the full extent of the problem.
	I believe that we should put our money where our mouths are. As I have said, this Bill is excellent, but its implementation and monitoring will be critical. With pilots of the sort that we are running from our office, being told that there is no further funding once the pilot is finished makes a mockery of what we say about tackling forced marriages. What we say and what we do are two very different things. I know that Ministers will take this matter forward and ensure that we put our money where our mouths are. We need more structured consultation and more listening to the survivors so that we can hear their voices more clearly. That has tended to be lacking throughout this entire debate.

Humfrey Malins: It is not often that the House is united in its approach to a Bill. I am delighted that all parties seem to have a common approach to what I believe is a very sensible Bill indeed. Every one of us regards forced marriages as evils. They are quite awful; they are an infringement of human rights; they cause utter misery; and they are often accompanied by violence, so anything we can do to put an end to them is to our advantage.
	How many forced marriages are there? I do not think we can ever know the truth about that. The forced marriages unit hears of some 200 or 300 a year, but there must be many more where, in truth, the victim—usually a woman—is unable to speak out or unable, largely through fear, to seek help from those who could offer it. Forced marriages are therefore a very bad thing indeed. We occasionally read horrible stories about so-called "honour killings" and we are disgusted by them. The House has a duty to take note of the problem and to see what can sensibly be done about it.
	I represent Woking, which has a large and well settled community of Pakistani background. We have the Shah Jahan mosque—the oldest in the country—and this community, mainly based in Maybury and Sheerwater, makes a huge contribution to local life in Woking. We have a harmonious, happy and settled community there. In preparing my contribution to the debate on the Bill tonight, I thought that I would speak to some of those who represent the Pakistani community in Woking on both the borough and county councils in order to find out their views. It will be no surprise, I am sure, to find out that all those to whom I spoke utterly condemned the practice of forced marriages. A leading county councillor, Shamas Tabrez, reminded me in a conversation that forced marriage is condemned at the highest level and is forbidden and illegal in Islam.
	We are very fortunate in Woking in having a strong mosque, which provides a spiritual and cultural centre for so many people and whose imam provides so much excellent advice. There are excellent councillors in the Maybury and Sheerwater area and many other bodies offer support to those in the community who need it.

Philip Davies: They have an excellent MP, as well.

Humfrey Malins: I am so grateful to my hon. Friend. I shall think of something very nice to say about him at some later stage.
	What my friends in Woking told me was that, much as they condemned forced marriages, they believed it important to differentiate them from arranged marriages. There is a world of difference between the two. We must understand that in many cultures, there are arranged marriages that are entered into voluntarily, though in a sense initiated by the families of the parties concerned. I venture to suggest that arranged marriages can often be much more successful than those that are not. The parties may come from families that know each other, so they start out with the absolute advantage of having mutual family support through parents and others who are all together in one big family. That can be essential, particularly in the early years of a marriage. There are many arranged marriages. Providing that they are entered into voluntarily, I say let that habit continue because in many ways they are a force for good in our community.
	Is there a problem with forced marriages in Woking? My general view is no, and I shall explain why. What evidence do I have for my proposition? A very important charity, based in the London area, provides safe houses for women who have been forced into marriage. It picked up more than 100 cases between March 2006 and February 2007 of women in London and the home counties. Only one case came from Surrey, and that was not, I think, from Woking.
	What is it about Woking? What is it about any community—this is the point of my speech—that can help so far as forced marriages are concerned? The first thing is to have an open and caring community, with strong and effective local support through various agencies to the settled community in that area. That is excellent. The importance of good local representation is also vital. As I said, Woking has an excellent mosque with an imam, the Maybury centre and the Asian women's groups. There is plenty of advice from different organisations for those in the Pakistani community.
	We have four excellent local councillors in Shamas Tabrez, Riasat Khan, Mohammed Iqbal and Muzzafar Ali, all of whom are well known to me and serve their community well. When I say to them, "What about forced marriages in the Woking area?", they respond in these terms: "We are so stuck into our community and involved in it that we try desperately hard to hear of any problems that may crop up so that we can get on top of them, help the constituents and prove to be good advisers and helpers. We have a community where there is a culture of openness and mutual support. People with problems in our community are encouraged to talk to the various agencies that are there for their benefit, including the local councillors."
	There is a lot to be said for strong local communities. If somebody—let us say that it is likely to be a young woman—is frightened and has been put into a forced marriage, she will need to turn to somebody for help. My point is that a strong community, with plenty of avenues to get good help and advice from people who understand the issue and are close to those whom they are helping, is important. We very much have that in Woking.

Fiona Mactaggart: I very much support what the hon. Gentleman says. Does he accept, however, that for some women the strong open community might feel as though it is open to people other than them? It is relatively easy for those of us in leading positions in society to assume that those structures are open to everyone in the community, but isolated and young women in particular sometimes do not feel that they are open to them. There is an obligation on us to create alternative structures that they might find more accessible.

Humfrey Malins: How right the hon. Lady is. I am grateful to her for that intervention. There are those who, despite the good local structures and contact points, still feel alone and frightened. It is up to us to try to help them as much as we can.
	On the Bill itself, little has been made of whether it is proper to approach the problem from the point of view of the civil law or the criminal law. In my judgment—I declare an interest as a part-time district judge, practising lawyer and Crown court recorder—what the Government have done is right. We should probably approach the problem from the point of view of civil sanctions. To bring the criminal law into it at the moment would not be appropriate. Apart from anything else, we legislate far too much in terms of the criminal law, and it could up the ante a little too much and cause more problems than it would solve. However, as hon. Members have said, forced marriages quite often—in fact, almost always—involve an element of crime, whether it is rape, kidnapping or violence. Many of those serious crimes are deeply connected with forced marriages and should be treated accordingly. The Bill is right to look at the problem from a civil point of view.
	I have another point to put to the Solicitor-General. The Bill provides that the procedures for a remedy will go through the family courts, by which I take it to mean the county court, the High Court and so on. Will she dwell a little on the prospect of extending the jurisdiction to the family side of the magistrates courts? They are more in number. An awful lot of places that do not have a county court have a magistrates court. They also have the advantage of speed and cheapness.
	I want to raise another issue, which has been touched on. The issues connected with religion and culture, which are quite sensitive, will come before county court and High Court judges. I cannot stress enough the need for relevant training for the judiciary when they are handling such cases. That training was mentioned in an intervention. It could and should be extended to many other people in this general field, if one likes to put it that way, who would benefit from the proper training necessary to equip them adequately to deal with the cultural and religious issues involved. The hon. and learned Lady will know, and will be able to tell me, that the judiciary are obliged to go on regular refresher courses for training purposes and so on, but to add at some stage something specifically on the issue of forced marriages might be a sensible way forward.
	I want to touch on some other aspects, which can be examined carefully in Committee. The Bill mentions a forced marriage protection order. First, what is in it and against whom can it be made? Under proposed new section 63B, the contents of the order can be absolutely anything:
	"A forced marriage protection order may contain...such other terms"
	as the court thinks appropriate. Against whom can it be made? That is very widely drafted, because such an order can be made against other persons
	"who are, or who may become, involved in other respects".
	I am not sure whether the hon. and learned Lady will be able to narrow that down a bit either at this stage or in Committee. At the moment, the order can say anything and can in effect be made against anybody. In proposed new section 63B(2), the word "knowingly" does not come before the word "involved". One wonders whether in fact orders can be made against people who are, in truth, not culpable and not aware of what we might describe as culpable or guilty participation.
	My next question is who will be able to apply for a forced marriage protection order? I appreciate that many Bills nowadays do not tell us the full story. That is generally left for regulation to do later. The Bill tells us that an application can be made by
	"the person who is to be protected... or... a relevant third party."
	That is fine as far as it goes, but who is a relevant third party? According to the Bill, it is
	"a person specified, or falling within a description of persons specified, by order of the Lord Chancellor."
	Who on earth will that be? It might be helpful if we could be told tonight; otherwise it seems likely that anyone with a tenuous or not tenuous, or close or not close, link with the family concerned will be able to make an application. Surely the Government do not want the definition to be as wide as that.

Lorely Burt: I should be interested to know why the hon. Gentleman thinks that we need to restrict the definition of those who may apply for the order. The person concerned might have a social worker, or might know of someone in the community, who would be prepared to stand up for him or her and who might not be a particularly close associate.

Humfrey Malins: I take the hon. Lady's point. Indeed, in a sense she has put her finger on the issue, which is that at some stage we shall need a little more definition of the type of person who can make a application. The hon. Lady may agree with me that it might not be appropriate for a family friend or acquaintance to be permitted to make such an application, and that therefore limitations may be necessary.
	I have pointed out that a court can make any order that it wishes. I feel that at some point we shall have to discover the likely terms of an order. There is a direct parallel with the legislation on antisocial behaviour orders, which also gave courts power to make whatever orders they wished. As a result, courts all over the country made absurd orders whose terms were so wide as to make them totally unenforceable—for example, "The defendant shall not enter the City of London" or "The defendant shall not commit a crime". Only case law tightened up the definition of what should be in an ASBO. It now appears that anything can go into a forced marriage protection order. It would be helpful if the Government gave us some idea of what might go into such orders, how wide they might be, and what might be seen as going a step too far.
	The provisions on arrest also have powerful implications. A constable may arrest someone who is in breach of an order, but under new section 63J
	"An interested party may apply to the relevant judge for the issue of a warrant for the arrest of a person".
	An interested person is defined as
	"(a) the person being protected by the order"
	—so far, so good—
	"(b) (if a different person) the person who applied for the order"
	—so far, so good—or
	"(c) any other person".
	That provision too is very wide, and we may have to have a look at it in Committee.
	I think that the Bill is right to provide for a person who is arrested to be brought to court very quickly, but I ask the Minister to confirm that the judge will refer to section 5(1) (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the Bail Act 1976 when considering the granting of bail. Will securities, sureties or other conditions similar to those imposed under that Act be imposed in these circumstances?
	I think we all want a society in which people can live without fear, force or coercion of any kind. I hope to goodness that the Bill will prove slightly helpful in the long run, but I remain worried because whatever else happens—even if the Bill sails into law—we will depend on the victim coming forward, or on someone coming forward on the victim's behalf. We need to make life straightforward enough to give people the feeling that however badly they have been treated they can come forward, obtain protection and be looked after properly.
	I wish the Bill well. Let me end by repeating what I said earlier. Woking is a strong community. We are aware of this issue, but there is no evidence of there being a great problem in Woking. That bears testimony to the quality and strength of its advice bodies and local councillors.

Fiona Mactaggart: The issue of forced marriage can affect anyone. I was privileged to be present at the commemoration of the first anniversary of the forced marriage unit when Baroness Scotland of Asthal reminded us:
	"Forced marriage affects children, teenagers and adults from all races and religions, including Christians, Hindus, Jews, Muslims and Sikhs. And it is not solely an issue facing Asian communities."
	However, I am shocked that each year the FMU deals with 5,000 inquiries and takes on some 250 to 300 cases, largely relating to people of south Asian descent.
	We must be robust in tackling this abuse of human rights. Many Members have referred to forced marriage in that context. I am proud of the Government's record on legislating on human rights and I wish to remind Members of specific commitments in international human rights instruments that refer to this issue. Article 16 of the universal declaration of human rights states:
	"Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses."
	Article 19 of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child declares:
	"States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child."
	Tragically, forced marriage affects a number of children every year.
	Unlike some Members, I welcome the decision not to make this a criminal offence. Lord Lester has deployed his legal skills in his usual imaginative and powerful way. Making this a civil offence empowers the victim. In civil cases, the victim has control over the legal proceedings. I have worked too often with victims in criminal proceedings who have felt pushed out as the Crown Prosecution Service takes over the case. In such circumstances, the victim's worries and concerns—which in cases such as forced marriage are often complex—can be ignored. Making this a civil offence will empower some victims of forced marriage, just as some victims of domestic violence are empowered by the injunction procedure. It will give the victim more control over the system, which is welcome. It also recognises a brutal reality. In forced marriage cases, the family is often both the oppressor and, at some point, the supporter. Families are complicated. A person's family can wickedly bully and harass them into a marriage that they do not feel is right for them, but at a later point that person might think, "I want my mum." Making this a civil wrong recognises some of the complexities in family relationships.
	All Members agree on the issue and I want to remind Members of our record when we all agree. We should think about what happened in respect of the Child Support Agency and the dangerous dogs legislation. It is risky when we all agree. That is especially true of this Bill and I want to alert Ministers and other colleagues to that. It started as a private Member's Bill and, although we have consulted on whether we should legislate to criminalise forced marriage—and decided not to—this Bill has not been widely consulted on. Because of the nature of the offence that we are trying to address, we need alliances if we are to enforce our ambition effectively. If people are not signed up, on board, engaged or have not been enabled to use their imagination about how to fix the situation, there is a risk that we could end up with a great piece of legislation that does not work. We have, for example, legislation against genital mutilation that has never been deployed.
	There is a job to be done in reaching out to people beyond the confines of this place. When I was speaking in my constituency about this Bill, a Sikh woman, who is a member of Slough borough council and a respected member of her community, asked me, "Who have you talked to about this, Fiona?" I mentioned conversations with Southall Black Sisters and others who are enthusiastic about the Bill. I could tell from her contribution that she was anxious that if the Bill was not well constructed, it could inflame the sort of arguments that happen in families and be used as a tool in family disputes to batter each other. There is a risk of that and we need to avoid it. The best way to do so is by engaging with the communities that know best how their families operate about the sensible ways to avoid it and how to engage the resourcefulness of those communities to make a difference.
	I feel strongly that during the summer we need to consult as widely as possible with all sorts of people. As I suggested when I intervened on the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), I fear that sometimes we can be a bit smug. We all say that we are against forced marriage, but my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) has dealt with more cases of forced marriage than any other Member. We have to stop and ask why that is so. Is it because Keighley is a hotbed of forced marriage? Is it more prevalent there than in Slough? Or is it because victims of forced marriage in my hon. Friend's constituency know that she is on their side? It is like wearing a red ribbon. She is on their side and she has stood up in mosques and in front of big, nasty bullies who say, "Oh, that is not a problem round here." She has stuck up for victims. It behoves all of us not to be complacent, but to stick up for victims and engage with all the communities that might be affected by or interested in this Bill. We should ask them what they can do that would make a difference.
	We all know that legislation does make a difference. It creates an important framework of values that can change people's behaviour. For example, the establishment of the forced marriage unit and the clear lead from this Government on the issue have meant that many religious leaders have said that there is no place for forced marriage in their community and that they oppose it. They are very good at saying that, but slightly less good at acting on those commitments. We need to recognise that legislation has an important role to play, but we need to do more than just pass this Bill. We need to reach beyond it.
	Some community leaders who make such statements do not notice the distress of someone who is trying to engage them. They try to pretend that the marriage is not quite false—"It is an arranged marriage with a bit of difficulty" they say, "because she is having a slightly hysterical moment. That's what happens to teenagers, isn't it?" I have heard and barged into such conversations. We need to engage with people on that.
	I have seen schools turn a blind eye to young women who have spent a lot of time off-roll. They have not bothered to find out what has happened to them when they have gone back to Pakistan, for example. In creating a sort of cultural tolerance, we have sometimes winked at, or not had the determination to march towards, things that should give us pause. We have not challenged habits and practices that, while not being the sort of forced marriages that would be subject to action under the Bill, are on the boundaries of it. We all have a duty to act on that.
	Hon. Members have talked about imaginative solutions. If we pass the Bill, we can deliver some of those. A convent of nuns in my constituency—sadly, they have moved to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew)—ran a school that had a place of retreat. I remember Sister Mary Stephen telling me that a young Muslim woman, seeing a female community of people who valued their faith, came to her to see if they could help her in moments of stress. It was striking that that woman wanted to reach outside her community to find like souls, who had some authority and who could provide some refuge for her, because she was fearful. We need to examine whether there are imaginative ways of creating refuge and space for women. First, however, we should give women power over their lives, and this Bill is one of the ways to do that.
	We can do other things, and I hope that by passing the Bill we can change the habits of Government Departments, which disempower women in such circumstances. As my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran) pointed out, there are women who have been tricked into marriage, or bullied into signing off the settlement of their husbands, who then perhaps disappear to reunite with wife No. 1, whom wife No. 2 did not know about. The fact that the Home Office says, "It is no business of yours now" is offensive and disempowering for women. We need to think of new ways to solve such problems without interfering with the privacy rights of men and women in such circumstances.
	I cannot find adequate words to describe the rage and distress of young people who have been tricked or forced into marriage. It is overwhelming and absolutely disabling for them. It is profoundly disempowering. I hope that the Bill will help to remedy that by giving them power in such circumstances. It is in a long tradition of legislation on human rights. We have an opportunity during the summer to ensure that the sort of consultation that I have talked about is delivered.
	We have a fantastic track record on families and marriage, and this Bill will be one example of it. I was therefore enraged today to hear Conservative Members saying that my party does not care about families and marriage.  [Interruption.] I am sure that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), who is my neighbour and for whom I have a great deal of respect, has not made such comments; I heard those comments on the radio today, however, in relation to tax allowances being shared between husbands and wives. Actually, the Government have a great record on human rights, families and children and on enabling families to cope in the circumstances they face.
	The Bill has support across the piece. All Members who have spoken stressed that it is supported by the three parties represented in the Chamber. This is a great opportunity, but we need to make sure that such widespread support does not slide into complacency about the detail of the legislation and how we actually deliver refuge and support for women. We need good practice in every Department—whether on regulations for the courts about witnesses with learning difficulties, the treatment of women by the immigration service or the advice that police and schools are given about women who are at risk. The forced marriage unit sends out advice on such things, but it is often put at the bottom of the pile. The Bill gives us the chance to bring it to the top of the pile and to make sure that it is absolutely what is required in practice. It will allow us to change the lives of disempowered young women and men who have been forced into marriage against their will.

Philip Davies: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), who made her case in a typically powerful manner. I am sure she also made a powerful case for membership of the Public Bill Committee.
	It is not often that I rise to congratulate the Government, but I do so on this occasion. I am delighted that they have taken forced marriage so seriously and I commend them for introducing the Bill. All-party consensus usually precedes a mess—the Child Support Agency and membership of the exchange rate mechanism jump instantly to mind—but in this case it has delivered a sensible result. I certainly endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Slough that we should not be complacent about the detail simply because we all support the aims of the Bill.
	I congratulate the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer), whom I mentioned earlier. She is both my parliamentary neighbour and my constituent, and has been incredibly persistent about forced marriage for many years. She has also been immensely brave for many years and should take much of the credit for the Bill. I know how sorry she is that she cannot be here to take part in the debate, but that should not detract from all the work she has done on the issue over many years and for which she is extremely well respected both in the House and in our local area.
	I supported much of what the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Chris McCafferty) said in her speech, on which I congratulate her. Whatever legislation is enacted, some cases will always slip through the net; they will go undetected and will not be dealt with. The Bill has two objectives that we all share. The first is that the number of cases should go down. We should like them to be eliminated, but given that some will slip through the net, let us hope that the number goes down. Secondly, we want the people responsible for the practice of forced marriage to be properly prosecuted.
	I, too, was shocked at the scale of the issue. The forced marriage unit deals with a massive 5,000 complaints a year—100 a week—in 300 of which the unit is certain a problem has occurred. That is an immense problem and we should be doing everything we can to deal with it.
	We need to find ways to reduce the number of cases and to prevent such things from happening, as well as making sure that people are properly prosecuted. As I said earlier, part of the solution must lie in dealing with the issue of people entering the UK on a marriage visa—a point mentioned by the hon. Member for Calder Valley. I would not go quite as far as the hon. Lady, but raising the age from 18 to 21 would certainly help.
	The older people are when they are allowed into the country on marriage visas, the greater the chance that they will be mature enough to resist some of the pressures that they face when being forced into marriage, and we should not underestimate those pressures. This is not a silver bullet, but if those people were a bit older, it might help to reduce the number of cases.
	There has been lots of talk during the debate—it has been very interesting—about whether this should be a civil or a criminal offence. My hon. Friends the Members for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and for Woking (Mr. Malins), who are very distinguished lawyers and parliamentarians—certainly far more distinguished than I am or ever will be—made powerful cases for why we should support this being a civil matter. I am not entirely convinced that the offence should be a civil and not a criminal one.
	Making forced marriage a specific criminal offence would send out a powerful message that it is not tolerated in our county and might act as a deterrent. I certainly would not want anyone to think that, because it is not a criminal offence, forced marriage is not a problem and that they can carry on with forced marriages, because doing so is not a criminal offence. I would not want anyone to take away such a message from the debate. Making it a criminal offence would help to make it clear that forced marriage is completely and utterly unacceptable.
	The hon. Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran) raised the issue of promoting the use of English, which would also help. I should certainly like more to be done to ensure that people who come into this country have a better grasp of English. If we are trying to encourage people to come forward with their complaint, they would certainly have more confidence in approaching our legal system, which can be daunting at the best of times to those of us who are fully conversant with English, if they had a better grasp of English. We need to deal with that important aspect.
	Above all, I should like to know from the Minister how we will measure the Bill's success. As I said earlier, presumably we have two objectives: a reduction in the number of cases and ensuring that the people involved are properly prosecuted. I should be grateful to the Minister if she gave an indication of how many people she envisages will be prosecuted as result of the Bill. Everyone supports the objectives and the motives, but the focus of my concern is on how effective the Bill will be in tackling the issue. I am interested to know how much of a reduction in forced marriage we can expect as a result of the Bill.
	If the Bill does not lead to the number of prosecutions that we hope for and a reduction in this evil practice does not occur, I hope that the Government will give a commitment to look again at the issue to see whether making forced marriage a criminal offence will deliver the reductions and the change in culture that we want.

Greg Knight: Does my hon. Friend agree, however, that the consultation process should not end with the passing into law of the Bill? The Bill provides that guidance can be prepared by the Secretary of State. Is it not important in formulating that guidance that the Minister continues to listen to representations?

Philip Davies: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention. He is entirely right, and I was certainly heartened by the Minister's comments in her speech, when she told us how much consultation had taken place before the Bill was drafted. That was a perfectly proper process, but my right hon. Friend is absolutely right that that should be an ongoing process, rather than being seen to be done and dusted.
	We need to see how the Bill works in practice and we need to continue to consult the people the Minister consulted before the Bill was produced to see whether it is having the desired effect. If it does not have the desired effect, I hope that the Government will commit to look again at whether forced marriage should become a criminal offence. Despite the persuasive skills of my hon. Friends, I am still not entirely convinced that we as a House should not send out a clear message to the country that we will not tolerate this evil trade any longer. It is completely unacceptable in this country and in this day and age. The number of cases that are referred to the authorities is completely unacceptable too. I hope that the merits of making it a criminal offence will be considered further in Committee, but, whether or not that occurs, I am delighted that the Government are making a giant step in the right direction with the Bill and I commend it to the House.

Lorely Burt: More than 20 years ago, before I ever dreamed that I would end up in this place, I met a young man called Mooli. He was the son of an Asian manager where I worked. Mooli was at university. He had a girlfriend and a happy, fulfilling life. I then heard that Mooli had got married. In his holidays he had been working at a petrol station and, apparently, on his wedding day, he had gone to work, left halfway through his shift, gone through a marriage ceremony and then gone back to work. A bride had been brought over from Pakistan—someone he had never met and certainly did not want to marry. I was quite shocked, as you might imagine, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	That was a forced marriage at one end of the spectrum that was so ably described by the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Chris McCafferty). Mooli decided to comply with the marriage and retain his standing in the community. He went back to his university studies and at least had something of a life. However, for those who disobey, running away and often being treated as dead by one's family—with the ultimate conclusion of the reality of death itself—is all too real a prospect in some circumstances.
	We have discussed the difference between a forced marriage and an arranged marriage, so I do not want to dwell on that. I echo the point made by hon. Members on both sides of the House that it is certainly not for us to consider whether arranged marriages or traditional western types of marriage have advantages over each other. As long as the people who enter into the marriage do so consensually, clearly it is perfectly acceptable.
	Lord Lester originally introduced the Bill in the Lords in January. I am delighted that the Government have adopted it and I thank all the other noble Lords who worked so hard to make it a sensitive and workable document. We have talked about the difference between civil and criminal redress. It is right to adopt a pragmatic perspective, because how can a young person take out criminal proceedings against their own family? Forced marriage is a violation of the European convention on human rights, the right freely to enter into marriage and the right to bodily and sexual integrity.

Greg Knight: The hon. Lady's comment about criminal proceedings left me a little puzzled. She asked how a wronged person could take out criminal proceedings. Surely if this was to be a criminal offence, a complaint would be made and it would then be a matter for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. In other words, the decision to prosecute would be at arm's length from the person complaining.

Lorely Burt: Regrettably, the hon. Gentleman was not in the Chamber when others explained that point much better than I can. Earlier, the question was asked: how can someone criminalise a member of their family and still try to maintain their family circle? It is particularly difficult if it is an extended family; when someone is ostracised by their family, the repercussions are severe. The Bill will act as a preventive measure wherever possible. It provides for swift injunctions to prevent marriages, and it will hopefully result in the restoration of family relationships. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman.
	I mentioned the violation of the European convention on human rights. Forced marriage also contravenes its underlying principles of self-determination and human dignity, and it contravenes the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. It is a form of sexual slavery; women are bought and sold by means of a dowry. We recently marked the bicentenary of the abolition of slavery, but it is alive and well in our own backyard. It is an affront to everyone in society that we allow that slavery to continue in our midst.
	The Government's forced marriage unit deals with 300 cases a year, although the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) shocked me—and, I am sure, many other hon. Members—when she said that it receives more than 5,000 inquiries a year. Some 85 per cent. of those 300 cases involve women and girls, and at least a third of cases involve young people under the age of 17. Children as young as 12 and 13 come forward as victims. The immediate family, the wider family, and often the community seek to impose on the young and control their behaviour.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) remarked, the cases that we know about are the tip of the iceberg. Forced marriage is often secret, unseen and unreported. Even in Woking, where the sun always shines and everyone shares their deepest family secrets, I am sure that there are instances of forced marriage. It is a bit like domestic violence: it pervades all classes and communities. We do not know what goes on behind closed doors. Homophobic bullying is also similar. Head teachers may say, "Oh no, we don't have anything like that here," but that often means that they are not looking or listening for it, and that children do not feel that they can come to them with their problems.
	In some communities, the problem is overt. Recently, I listened to chilling interviews on the streets of Birmingham following a so-called honour killing. Some of the men interviewed openly expressed the view that the family had the perfect right to use that ultimate sanction on a young woman or girl who disobeys. Honour killings are clearly already covered in British law as murder. What we need, and what the Bill provides, is legislation to help fix a lesser crime.
	We have talked about the fact that the Bill offers civil, not criminal, remedies, but I am sure that it will send a strong message that those practices are not acceptable in this country, regardless of one's community or background. It will embolden young people to assert their human right not to be forced into marriage, and it will enable people who are concerned for young people's welfare to act for those who are unwilling or unable to act for themselves. It sends a strong message to those who use many subtle means of exerting pressure on a young person, including emotional blackmail, physical violence, deception, aiding and abetting, and inducement of extended family members. Deception is particularly important. Young people may be lured abroad on the pretext of a holiday or other matter. The wider family may be the ringleaders, and the Bill makes it clear that they may be just as culpable as close family.
	Fears have been expressed that the Bill will drive such activities even further underground, with families taking children abroad at an even earlier age. There are also fears that the Bill will stigmatise some ethnic minority communities and lead to entrenchment and further discrimination. However, the emphasis is on the protection of the victim and avoidance of forced marriage rather than prosecuting perpetrators, which is right. As I have said, an injunction will enable swift action to be taken to stop a forced marriage, which will enhance the chance of reconciliation with the family.
	As I have said, the cases covered by the FMU are the tip of the iceberg. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has reported that one in 10 calls to its Asian child protection helpline relates to forced marriage, although callers do not always say that that is the problem in the first instance. The initial problem described may involve domestic violence, rape, self-harm, young runaways, suicide or even the threat of murder. In 2006, 82 young people called ChildLine about arranged and forced marriage, describing problems such as their parents not listening to them, the prospect of being disowned, fear of violence from family members and physical abuse that they were already experiencing.
	Education is a big issue for girls who, once married, tend not to go to school. There is a huge pool of underused talent that we must exploit for our country. The Equal Opportunities Commission has reported that Bangladeshi, Pakistani and Afro-Caribbean women are aspirational, confident and increasingly well-qualified. However, even if they enter the world of work fully supported by their families, they can be held back by the work culture. I recently managed to secure a short Westminster Hall debate to bring the issue of cultural intelligence—sensitivity on behalf of employers—to the awareness of the Government and, hopefully, the wider world of work.
	Leaving aside the issue of justice, if we do not do all that we can to enable those young women to achieve their true potential, we, as a society, will miss out on their talents and their economic potential to increase the overall wealth of this country. It is all interconnected: the empowerment of women through better education and increased economic power gives them greater awareness and the ability to exert their own human rights, but they need joined-up support.
	The group Rights of Women has asserted the need for continued civil legal aid. I was glad when the Minister confirmed in response to an intervention that legal aid will be available, where it is appropriate. Liberty has pointed out the importance of non-legal mechanisms such as funding, women's groups, non-governmental organisations, community groups, leaflets, websites and videos. The need for the proper training of social workers and others in the field has already been raised, and it is clearly important.
	By placing forced marriage within family law as part of domestic violence, the Bill will hopefully avoid the stereotyping of any specific community, which would be entirely wrong. The newly introduced gender equality duty will require agencies that deal with the victims, who include men as well as women, to be sensitive to culture, race and gender.
	Violence against women and men is pervasive. As I have said, it occurs in every social group and every class, and it affects every sexual orientation. The Bill provides a sensitive framework that will enable victims of forced marriage and their supporters to gain justice, hopefully without irreparably damaging family and wider relationships, by preventing that form of sexual violence from ever taking place.
	Unlike the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), I think that if the Bill is successful, a measure of its success will be that the number of complaints goes up as more people feel able to come forward. With the words of the hon. Member for Slough about the importance of consulting and ensuring that we do not go forward with a cosy consensus ringing in our ears, I look forward to examining closely some of the practical implications of the Bill in Committee.

Brooks Newmark: I have been delighted to listen to many of the speeches that have been made in this debate. Clearly, there is enormous cross-party support for the Bill. I join others in congratulating the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) on highlighting this important issue and bringing it to the attention not only of Members of this House but of the wider community.
	I will be fairly brief, but I wish to make several points to the Solicitor-General, whose opinion I always appreciate. First, I want to try to understand, from her point of view, the spectrum that has been highlighted during the debate between forced marriage, arranged marriage, matchmaking and the general psychological pressure that is sometimes put on young women to get married. As the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) said, forced marriage often goes hand in hand with violence against women in a symbiotic relationship. Another problem with forced marriages is that of women becoming a form of quasi-forced labour. A lot of the young women who come from abroad have no social or family network. They are brought into this country as a form of slave labour for the household—sometimes, unfortunately, for the mother-in-law, who views her as an adjunct to the family merely as unpaid labour. The hon. Member for Solihull said that sometimes those young girls become, in effect, sex slaves. That is a big problem, because they have nobody to protect them. I hope that the Bill will go some way towards dealing with the three abuses—violence, slave labour and sexual slavery—that these girls have to deal with when they are brought into this country through forced marriages.
	I still find it difficult to distinguish between forced marriage, arranged marriage, and psychological pressure. How does one define a forced marriage? As we heard earlier, many women come under enormous psychological pressure to go into a marriage. Is that a forced marriage? If not, why not? Perhaps the Minister can clarify those points.
	Secondly, strong community relations are key to this. While there are many benefits to multiculturalism, perhaps one of the unintended consequences has been the prevalence of forced marriage in this country. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) observed that there are 5,000 such cases; there would have been far fewer 10 years ago. Strong community relations play a key role, and communication is critical. It is important that the infrastructure is in place and that there is a facility to help women caught up in forced marriages to find an easy way out of the trap in which they find themselves. That does not mean we must have a society into which people from different ethnic backgrounds feel they have to assimilate; we need an integrated society in which we respect others' cultures and backgrounds without making them assimilate.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley made an important point about language. As people come into this country, it is important that there is far more encouragement for them to adopt its mother tongue, which is English, so that they can integrate, if not assimilate. Learning English is important because if they have a problem with their marriage, they should be able to communicate, in English, any problem to the facility that the Bill seeks to introduce.

Humfrey Malins: I am most intrigued by my hon. Friend's observations about how to distinguish between a forced marriage and an arranged marriage. The definition in the Bill refers to force, including coercion
	"by threats or other psychological means",
	whatever that means. What about the situation where there is family pressure for an arranged marriage? Would it not be rather difficult to decide whether that meant it was a forced marriage?

Brooks Newmark: That was very much the point I was trying to make at the beginning of my speech, to tease out from the Solicitor-General how she defines arranged marriages where psychological pressures are created by families at home. They may not come from wealthy backgrounds, and financial pressure may be put on people to get involved in a marriage that ultimately becomes unwelcome and, in many ways, abusive. We want to try to prevent such situations through the Bill.
	I want to return to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) made during his speech on the importance of judiciary training. There is no point in introducing legislation to deal with this sensitive issue without ensuring not only that people have proper training to understand the variety of issues that those who go through forced marriages deal with, but that the numbers are there. Will people who have judicial training be required to learn a foreign language, so that they can communicate with some of the young ladies who are being abused?
	My fourth point relates to what the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) said about empowering the victim. Many of the women in question are very young and have no family network in this country. I am perplexed about how we can empower somebody who cannot communicate, and has found themselves in a trap—in a family who may well coalesce around the husband and protect him. They might be abusing that young person, and there might not be a mechanism by which the young woman can escape from the trap in which she finds herself.

Lorely Burt: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. His colleague, the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), talked about the wideness of the definition of those able to intervene. I am hoping that if an individual finds themselves in such a circumstance, the Bill will enable a friend, social worker or someone to whom they have gone for help to intervene on their behalf by virtue of the wideness of that definition.

Brooks Newmark: I understand the spirit in which the hon. Lady makes her point, but the reality is that many of those young women feel trapped in their homes. Many do not get out even to do the shopping. They have no social network in which to communicate with anybody, even extended members of the family, let alone social workers or other parties who could try to help them. That is the Bill's weakness.
	Who is the relevant third party, who will make the application? If there is no way for the individual to communicate, no social network and no social worker with whom to interact, and the position is compounded because the family gangs up on her as she becomes increasingly unhappy, a problem develops. I suspect that, although one, two, half-a-dozen or even 500 women may escape and go to the courts to ask for help, probably 10 times that number cannot escape. I believe that that problem will continue to exist.
	Although I support the Bill, and it is great that there is cross-party support for dealing with such an important issue, I believe that there are many outstanding questions, which I hope that the Solicitor-General will now clarify.

Vera Baird: I compliment all—I stress "all"—the contributors to the debate. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) made a characteristically balanced contribution—he will be a huge asset to the Committee. The Bill is good now, but if it can be improved, he is the man to help us do it.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Chris McCafferty) made the distinction, which is not such a difficult one, between forced and arranged marriage. Her ability to make that distinction was echoed by that of the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) and the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins). The hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire made the powerful point that arranged marriage, as opposed to forced marriage, has existed cross-culturally, and she mentioned "Pride and Prejudice". She is right, and a slightly parodic Bollywood film, "Bride and Prejudice" makes the same point. The great distinction between forced and arranged marriage is consent. People in forced marriages never live happily ever after.
	I was glad to have the professional support of the hon. Member for Woking for the civil route that the Government have chosen to take. I assure him that there will be training through the Judicial Studies Board—we have already thought about that. He was keen to know whether the Bill's implementation could be extended to the family proceedings court. It contains a power to do that, but training will probably be necessary before that happens. We owe a lot to the High Court, which has cut out a niche in identifying the sort of cases that we are considering. It is therefore important that we stay, for the time being, where the expertise is. Of course, powers to extend can follow.
	I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran) for her work on violence against women. She has done that year in, year out throughout the time that I have known her. She readily acknowledges that the criminal tools are too unsubtle an approach for the problem. A young person would not be encouraged to leave if it were likely that one or more members of the family would find themselves before the criminal courts. She made the powerful point, which was reflected in other speeches, that the scale of the problem may be much greater than any of us know. We must therefore ensure that there is adequate and good quality training if the problem emerges on a larger scale than we expect. We must ensure that, for example, survivor support is well resourced.
	The hon. Member for Woking made more points, but they are better left to the Committee.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) said that she believed that there was a need for more consultation. As she acknowledged, the Home Office carried out a consultation in 2005. The result was overwhelmingly in favour of not criminalising the offence but dealing with it through a civil route. Many organisations were consulted then.
	After Lord Lester introduced his Bill in another place, the Odysseus Trust, with which he is linked, also carried out a consultation on how it ought to be amended to make it more effective. A large number of organisations were contacted and there were 32 respondents, including Ashiana, the Asian Family Counselling Service, the Commission for Racial Equality, Hounslow domestic violence network, the Iranian and Kurdish Women's Rights Organisation, Imkaan, the Muslim Parliament of Great Britain and the Newham Asian Women's Project. Southall Black Sisters have been deeply involved from the start, as have Rights of Women. As others have said, we must of course not stop consulting or ensuring that eyes remain fixed on the functioning of the Bill. However, I hope that my hon. Friend can none the less be satisfied that a good deal of consultation has been taken forward.
	The hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) still has doubts. Even his colleagues cannot persuade him that the criminal route is not the right one. The problem is that people might be deterred from coming forward if they fear that they will criminalise their families. If they can take a gentler route and just seek help, thereby stopping the situation before it really starts, there might be possibilities for reconciliation and healing that would not arise if the police were called in. That is the line that we are taking. It has met with support throughout the House tonight and, overwhelmingly, among the organisations that we have consulted.
	The hon. Gentleman asked me about numbers, but we are talking about a quasi-invisible crime, so it is hard to say. Last year or the year before, the Metropolitan police were aware of 518 cases and, as many hon. Members have said, 300 such cases come to the attention of the forced marriages unit each year. Moreover, the High Court was aware of 30 cases, but I cannot say more about numbers. He talked about whether large numbers of people will be, as he put it, prosecuted—he meant be taken to the civil courts. I cannot predict whether that will be the case, but I hope that the Bill will send out a powerful signal from the House not only that those consequences will follow, but that the practice must stop. Rather than there being a great emergence of new cases, it would be far better if we acted effectively tonight to deter people.
	There are a number of people to whom I should pay tribute, including my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice who, as Home Secretary, gave impetus to the original consultation, which took place way back in 2005, my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Pensions Reform, my distinguished predecessor, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), who launched the document when he was Home Secretary. That document was all about criminal provision, which was overwhelmingly rejected. It is hugely to the credit of Lord Lester that he carried the torch forward and changed the offence into a civil one.
	It is also hugely to the credit of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) that she has championed the cause throughout. She cannot be here tonight for very good reasons and she is sorry for that, but if she was prepared to serve on the Committee, her input would no doubt be most welcome.
	The issue that we are discussing applies to all races and all religions—to Hindus, Sikhs, Jews and Muslims. It is also not confined to one society, as many have said. Forced marriage amounts to a serious social evil. It can also amount to sexual slavery and can affect people as young as 12 or 13. Dowries are paid and people are bought and sold. As has been said, resistance can lead to honour killings and submission can lead to suicide. Forced marriages are a dreadful social evil.

Nicholas Winterton: May I ask a delicate and sensitive question of the Solicitor-General? What is she prepared to do about what is clearly the physical abuse, and perhaps even rape, of a young girl who has been compelled to enter a forced marriage? Is that a subject about which the Solicitor-General is concerned? I am deeply worried about what we can do about what has been done to a young woman.

Vera Baird: The hon. Gentleman has not had the advantage of hearing the debate, which has covered that territory fairly significantly over the past couple of hours while others of us have been here. Of course, if someone is compelled into a marriage and forced to have sex, that would be rape. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield made that point and also listed the other offences that are frequently committed in the course of a forced marriage and what follows thereafter. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will read the report in  Hansard tomorrow—

Nicholas Winterton: But what is your view?

Vera Baird: What we are seeking to do is to give young people in danger the tools to prevent the danger from emerging, but if criminal offences are committed and it is appropriate, the people involved should be prosecuted. However, we are not prepared to put the onus on a young person by saying that the only way they can get out of the situation is to go to the police and compel their family to become involved in criminal proceedings. We are not prepared to say that that is the right way forward, because that is not the case. If they can have recourse to someone else, a civil conclusion can be reached that might head the problem off at the pass before it goes into the horrifying areas to which the hon. Gentleman has alluded.
	This is not just a national problem; it is an international one as well. India now has a Minister for women and child development, I think for the first time, and I was fortunate enough to meet Renuka Chowdhury recently at a Commonwealth women MPs' conference in Kampala. She assured me that the Indian Government had legislated to prohibit child marriages in India. She also told me that a women's commissioner was engaged in a programme to educate people on this matter and to prevent forced marriage. It is possible that the advent of this legislation will encourage legislation over there to give enhanced protection. I also understand from Lord Lester that it is not impossible that similar steps will be taken in Pakistan and Bangladesh. I have read his speeches on this matter, and I met him today. I hope, therefore, that we are creating an influence that will go beyond the four corners of the statute and of our jurisdiction.
	Implementation will be important. We have the benefit of the forced marriage unit, which is well grounded in promoting and publicising the issue and in producing guidance. It is a great credit to our High Court judiciary—if that is not too patronising a way to describe such an august group—that they have identified this issue where it has arisen, and responded to it. When the Bill has gone through all its stages, we shall therefore be starting with a body of understanding and support in the judiciary, in the forced marriage unit and in civil society.
	The procedure that we shall use involves a tried and tested formula that is to be found in part IV of the Family Law Act 1996, which provides solutions to family problems. It is good that the provisions are to be embedded in family law, because they will not seek to point a finger at any part of society. They will simply accept the issue for what it is, namely, unacceptable family behaviour that can be dealt with by civil injunctions, just as other kinds of violence against family members are now. They are flexible and broad enough to allow a judge to head off the danger and to make all orders that are appropriate for protection.
	We are arming ourselves well with the Bill, and we will see whether any more needs to be done in Committee. Cross-party support here today has been most welcome, and I am sure that that will continue. We will all work hard to make the best of the Bill, because we must. We owe it to our young citizens whose young lives are curtailed and whose opportunities, hopes and expectations are blocked by the impossible-to-tolerate evil of forced marriage. We must take steps now, and it is good that we have cross-party support for doing so. We are taking steps now to stop it.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Bill [ Lords] (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 83A(7) (Programme motions),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Bill [Lords]:
	 Committal
	1. The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
	 Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
	2. Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 19th July 2007.
	3. The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
	 Consideration and Third Reading
	4. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
	5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
	6. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.
	 Other proceedings
	7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of any message from the Lords) may be programmed. —[Mark Tami.]
	 Question agreed to .

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Delegated Legislation Committees),

Official Secrets

That the draft Official Secrets Act 1989 (Prescription) (Amendment) Order 2007, which was laid before this House on 5th June, be approved. —[Mark Tami.]
	 Question agreed to.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Delegated Legislation Committees),

Local Government

That the draft Local Authorities (Conduct of Referendums) (England) Regulations 2007, which were laid before this House on 23rd May, be approved. —[Mark Tami.]
	 Question agreed to.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Delegated Legislation Committees),

Family Law

That the draft Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2007, which were laid before this House on 6th June, be approved. —[Mark Tami.]
	 Question agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: It will be convenient for the House to take motions 10, 11 and 12 together.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Delegated Legislation Committees),

Betting, Gaming and Lotteries

That the draft Gambling Act 2005 (Operating Licence Conditions) Regulations 2007, which were laid before this House on 11th June, be approved.
	That the draft Gambling (Lottery Machine Interval) Order 2007, which was laid before this House on 11th June, be approved.
	That the draft Categories of Gaming Machine Regulations 2007, which were laid before this House on 11th June, be approved.— [Mark Tami.]
	 Question agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: I call motion No. 13.

Mark Tami: Not moved.

Philip Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you can shed any light on why the modernisation of the House motion has twice been withdrawn at the last moment. Is it because of the understandable—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman gets into the reasons, let me answer him, so that Sir Nicholas Winterton will not have to raise another point of order. Let me explain that the Government are in charge of their own business and if they wish not to move an item on the Order Paper, under the rules of the House, it is not for the Speaker to challenge it.

Nicholas Winterton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you know, I would not challenge your ruling under any circumstances. May I say, however, as a founder member of the Modernisation Committee in 1997—and having sat on that Committee ever since that time—that I wanted to intervene on the basis that there was a unique opportunity to indicate my support for the change. I have had the privilege of speaking to the Leader of the House on three separate occasions and I would have been delighted to propose her to take the Chair at the Committee's next meeting. I merely wanted to advance the reason why I would be happy to do that on behalf of the Modernisation Committee.

Mr. Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the utterances and indeed the deliberations of the Modernisation Committee are very important to me. I am fond of hearing what it has to say, but as I have said before, patience is a great virtue in the House and we need to possess it at all times. I am therefore sure that the day will come when the hon. Gentleman will be able to move a motion proposing that the Leader of the House assume the exalted role of Chairman of the Modernisation Committee.

Greg Knight: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are not the facts as follows? This motion has been tabled twice with the intention of being moved and the Government have twice failed to move it. Does not that rather indicate that the Government do not know what on earth they are doing?

Mr. Speaker: In another life, I was a Back Bencher. During that time, the right hon. Gentleman was a senior Whip and I recall that he sometimes withdrew motions. I never bothered to draw any conclusion from that; I always said to myself that that is the business we are in.

Andrew Robathan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a matter dear to your heart, as you said, so would it not be to the advantage of the House—the nation's debating chamber—if we had a chance to discuss this matter in order properly to understand how to modernise the House of Commons?

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the Government Whips have taken the lateness of the evening into consideration. They may want to put this motion on at an earlier time when the hon. Gentleman and others can have more time to discuss the matter. However, I do not know these things.

Peter Bone: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As a new Member of the House, can you advise me why the Order Paper says that there would have been no debate had the motion been moved? I can recall earlier motions on which we had lively debates on appointments to Committees. I am a little confused by what it says on the Order Paper.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may be a new Member, but that shows that he is certainly reading his Order Paper. I am reliably informed that that is a minor error. Of course, had the matter been taken before 10 o'clock, which it was not because it was not moved, it would have been debatable until 10 o'clock.

BARWICK IN ELMET HILL FORT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mark Tami.]

Colin Burgon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for selecting this subject for debate. Adjournment debates cover a huge range of subjects, and I hope that my contribution will extend that further. I think that this is the Minister's first Adjournment debate in her new post. I bet she cannot believe her luck in pulling the plum subject of the hill fort in Barwick in Elmet. If she can restrain herself, I will explain a few things about it.
	I know the Minister to be well travelled and knowledgeable, and although I am not usually a betting man, I am willing to bet in this case that she has never been to Elmet and that before today she had no knowledge whatsoever of the national monument that is the hill fort in Barwick in Elmet. However, I hope that by the end of the evening she will be aware of that valued historical site because then one of my aims will have been achieved—that of raising awareness of that monument. I know that you like to travel in Yorkshire, Mr. Speaker, because you have made several visits there, and I should like to set the scene.
	Barwick in Elmet is in the centre of the constituency that I am so proud to represent. It is set in attractive rolling countryside to the east of that wonderful city of Leeds. It has an equally attractive village centre, with its late 14th century church of All Saints. It has friendly pubs, attractive homes, an excellent primary school and its famous maypole. It is a village with real community involvement across a range of activities from sport to history, and it is the latter on which I shall concentrate.
	The Minister will be interested—at least, I hope that she will be interested—to hear that the earth works at Barwick are of national importance. The Barwick in Elmet historical society tells me that there are only between 50 and 100 pre-Roman hill forts nationally, and most of those are found in the south of England. It is clear that even in the days of the iron age there was a north-south divide, and as usual the north came off worst.
	There are very few examples of such iron age hill forts in Yorkshire, so Barwick is in a fortunate position. It is worth noting that the fort is considered to be large compared with others in Britain. As a footnote I add that the other similar fort is in Huddersfield, which does not even rank alongside Leeds. In addition, the earth works have a well-preserved Norman motte and bailey, of which there are roughly 600 nationally. That Norman motte and bailey is constructed in the iron age hill fort. It is history built on history. To add another little footnote, the people who were responsible for building the Norman construction were the De Lacy family, who ruled a huge part of west Yorkshire from that particular monument, as we call it now, in Barwick. In some respects, Barwick in Elmet was the tower of London of west Yorkshire. The combination of the iron age and the Norman makes the Barwick site doubly important and fully deserving of efforts to protect and enhance it. The role of the Barwick in Elmet historical society has been absolutely crucial and critical in doing just that.
	For those who prefer their history in a slightly more contemporary style, had they joined me last Monday and walked up to the top of the Norman establishment, they would have found a base of concrete, which was used in the second world war by the air defence people to look eastwards towards the Humber coast to spot and track the German bombers coming over to bomb our fair city of Leeds. I merely add that as an extra point.
	The catalyst for the revival of interest in the earth works probably occurred in 2003, when following a meeting attended by members of the parish council and the maypole committee it was decided to raise awareness of the site in the village and the surrounding area, and to consider more proactive ways of maintaining. Individuals such as Harold Smith, Jeff Yapp and Nigel Trotter deserve praise for the steps that they have taken to mobilise the community.
	A very important step has been taking children from the local primary school around the earth works every year and explaining its history to them. On my last visit to the school, the pupils put me on the spot by asking what I had done to safeguard the hill fort. Hopefully, I am doing my bit for them this evening. On those trips, the children are made aware of the need to value this wonderful, historic site in the years ahead. The work of the school, under the excellent leadership of head teacher Peter Docherty, is vital in ensuring that future generations of villagers appreciate and value what is in their midst.
	I should also mention the doughty workers of Barwick in Bloom, led by the ever-energetic John Tinker. They have helped to eradicate the Japanese knotweed that was in danger of obliterating part of the iron age ditch. I also congratulate them on their work on the Methodist chapel churchyard adjoining the site. It provided a useful backdrop for a Sky television interview on Monday in which I attacked Ken Bates, chairman of Leeds United football club—but I will not go into that now.
	The historical society has put up notice boards around the iron age ditch, highlighting the need to protect this vital piece of our heritage. I know that in the weeks ahead it hopes to improve the signage with pictures of what the site would have looked like historically, and I welcome that move.
	The historical society, the parish council and others have been proactive, and following funding of some £21,000 from English Heritage—a large sum in its terms—a three-year improvement programme was drawn up. It has enabled the parish council to supervise contracts for work such as clearing rubbish from the iron age ditch, constructing access steps into the ditch, and renewing and repairing the steps leading up a steep slope to the top of the Norman site. In turn, English Heritage has encouraged the parish council to apply for heritage lottery funding, and a £4,000 grant has been used to increase knowledge about the village earth works in the local community. Lottery funding was also secured for an archaeological dig on a site within the boundaries of the earth works, which yielded some interesting materials. In September 2006, tours of the earth works were organised for local people. I was fortunate enough to be taken around by Harold Smith, who brought the whole site to life for me.
	I have to admit that in my previous life I was a teacher of history. It has always depressed me that although most people dislike history when they are at school, once they leave school they begin to love it. I hope that that is not down to history teachers. I do know this about history, though: it is about facts, but it is also about the power of imagination. Standing on the iron age earth works and visualising the huge efforts required by iron age society to construct such a feature was a very engaging experience for me.
	It is not possible for me to embark on a massive, detailed account of the work done around the site. I am merely giving the Minister a brief overview of the work that is being done. As with many aspects of our lives—this does not apply to the Minister, but it applies to some of us—it is not all progress and renewal. There are also problems, and I hope to enlist the Minister's help in addressing them.
	First, there are unfortunate examples of encroachment into the iron age ditch. We shall have to deal with that sooner or later if we consider the ditch to be an important national monument. Secondly, the dumping over a number of years of garden rubbish and other refuse into the ditch has been a great problem for those who wish to preserve the site. Thirdly, because the earth works lie within a conservation area, protected trees can become a problem. That is especially true in the area known as the Wendel ditch. On Monday, I saw in the company of Mr. Smith the damage caused to the ditch sides by a fallen tree whose roots had pulled away the earth. I am told that the tree fell over in winter, but it is still littering the 2,200-year-old ditch and impeding access for people who want to see it.
	It is important to frame a way forward and I have some constructive suggestions to make. Will the Minister encourage English Heritage to seek closer working relations with Leeds city council in order to address some of the planning issues that have arisen? MPs are fully aware from their mailbag and from personal experience that planning is a complicated issue, and several brains are required to work out solutions to many planning problems. Will the Minister also agree to discuss with English Heritage the possibility of it using its powers under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 to address the encroachment issue in a timely manner? English Heritage is trying to create a mood in the village that will lead to there being full support and that strategy is to be applauded, but organisations must sometimes use the powers that are available to them. I know from speaking to English Heritage officials that it values the site. It would greatly assist its efforts if it sought to enlist fully in support of its work members of the historical society, especially when visiting the site.
	All organisations benefit from improved communications, and I know that English Heritage is keen to take this matter on board. It is vital to tap the enthusiasm of local people. When officers visit, the simple step of contacting someone from the parish council or the historical society would lead to a better result. I would also like English Heritage to be asked to liaise with Leeds city council's tree officer in order to receive professional advice on tackling tree maintenance on the site. I am aware that in a recent programme there was training for a volunteer. Unfortunately, that volunteer moved and there is now a funding difficulty. It would be good if Leeds city council and English Heritage came together to provide training for somebody in the village so that the skill base of the historical group and the parish are enhanced.
	To make a dig at Leeds city council—I can do so as it is in Liberal-Conservative hands—I would hope that after four years it might finally get round to improving what is a dangerous footpath running alongside Wendel hill. Does the Minister agree that a 10-year plan—I plucked that number out of the air, so if she wants to change it I am happy to discuss that with her—agreed by English Heritage, the parish council and the historical society would be a constructive way to take matters forward?
	Let me also make an offer to the Minister. I am happy to host any visit that she might like to make to the site. She might wish to do so during the day, and sit on a bench opposite the Methodist chapel and eat a bag of fish and chips; or if she arrives a bit later, we could have a drink in one of the good local pubs. I am also prepared to report back to the Minister in the coming months about whether raising the issue in this debate has had an effect.
	A part of my political philosophy is the principle that we work better when we work together. In that context, co-operation between the Barwick in Elmet community organisations, local authorities and national bodies is the best way to achieve our objectives in respect of this wonderful monument.
	It is always good to end with a stirring quote from a famous historical figure. I strive to do that but usually fail miserably. On this occasion, I can do no better than use a contemporary quotation. I do not know whether the Minister read the wonderful article in  The Guardian yesterday by Bill Bryson—
	 It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
	 Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn .—[Mr. Watts.]

Colin Burgon: As I was saying, Bill Bryson wrote a powerful article about the British countryside and how humans have shaped it positively, and I can certainly identify with that. He said:
	"All that posterity asks of us is that we look after what has been created for us already."
	There is no better way to sum up the way forward for the hill fort at Barwick in Elmet. I await the Minister's comments with hopeful anticipation.

Margaret Hodge: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Colin Burgon) on securing this debate and on the passion and commitment that he has shown in putting forward his case. I agree entirely that we work best when we work together, and with Bill Bryson's words. It is crucial that we retain the sense of place that was created by our forefathers through the many structures and buildings that they developed. Therefore, the protection of our proud past and heritage is crucial, not only for the present but for future generations. I endorse that completely.
	I also wish to take this opportunity to congratulate Barwick historical society, which has done an enormous amount of work in the community to promote, protect and raise awareness of an important historical site. My hon. Friend is right to say that I do not know the site, but I would be delighted to visit it. I have visited other hill forts and I know how exciting and interesting they can be.
	I have been given a lot of information about the site, and it has been developed as a result of strong community effort, which we should applaud. As my hon. Friend said, many local organisations were involved in looking after the monument, including the Maypole Trust; the primary school that my hon. Friend mentioned, especially Mr. Peter Doherty, its head teacher, who has taken a real interest in it and ensured that his pupils do; and Barwick in Elmet's parish council.
	I appreciate my hon. Friend's concerns and those of the historical society about the monument. I need no persuading of its national importance, from my general knowledge and also from my understanding that the site consists of no fewer than two scheduled ancient monuments. My hon. Friend talked about the rarity of iron age hill forts. He may be interested to know that there are more than he thinks—814 in England, with only 23 in Yorkshire. His local fort is one of only a handful in west and north Yorkshire. The monument at Barwick in Elmet is a good, and reasonably well-preserved, large example. Although I have been in the job for only just over a week, I have already had the opportunity to visit an English Heritage site and had one meeting and one encounter with staff. They are doing an important and effective job on behalf of us all in looking after sites and buildings in which often no one else takes an interest. We should applaud that.
	English Heritage tells me that very little of the surviving remains of the Barwick in Elmet monument have been disturbed, making it of even greater importance as a future resource for research. Equally important are the well-preserved remains of the Norman motte and bailey castle, dating from the invasion of William the Conqueror, as my hon. Friend said. In answer to a question from him on 4 June, the then Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy), replied that English Heritage had provided a substantial grant last year of nearly £22,000 to cover the cost of clearing the site of overgrown vegetation and dumped material, repairing steps and boundary fencing and, importantly, establishing an improved maintenance regime. I note my hon. Friend's request that English Heritage should be more proactively engaged locally in respect of the monument, and I will make sure that English Heritage sees a copy of the report of my hon. Friend's remarks tonight. As I develop my response, he will see that English Heritage takes the site particularly seriously.
	There are some problems in relation to the site because it is owned by about 20 individuals and groups. English Heritage's first responsibility is to the owners. It considers that it has provided extensive assistance and advice to the historical society. Achieving the full participation of everybody in the local community—all the owners and occupiers—in positive conservation management, which is a shared aim of all those involved, is important. The scheme started promisingly, with strong support from most sections of the community, but as my hon. Friend knows there is still a long way to go to get everybody involved.
	English Heritage applauds the work of the local historical society, the parish council and the local community in Barwick in Elmet. It, too, acknowledges that it is always possible to do more. As I am sure my hon. Friend will understand, however, it must also prioritise its staff resources across the country in ensuring that it gives proper care to all our scheduled monuments. English Heritage gave the grant to which I alluded to the parish council, which has much cross-membership with the historical society—there are people who belong to both community organisations. That grant was given to enable the local community to manage the monument without the need for English Heritage's direct involvement in day-to-day issues.
	The Heritage Lottery Fund has now provided more than £29,000 in grants for the site over the past two years. That was for two local heritage initiative projects, one of which was completed in March 2006, and the other, which is for more than £24,000, is still ongoing. The purpose of the latter, rather large grant is to support investigation of part of the monument through excavation and to undertake some geophysical investigations. That project is fully endorsed by English Heritage.
	My hon. Friend knows that site management is complex because the site has a large number of owners, especially when the adjacent properties are taken into account. The hill fort is surrounded on most sides by residential gardens, which abut the fortifications. Many of the people who own those properties are enthusiastic supporters of the management project, but some are less so. English Heritage became aware of various management and maintenance problems at the site through monitoring visits undertaken by the regional English Heritage field monument warden. To facilitate a solution to the management issues, the wardens have worked hard with the owners of properties on and adjacent to the site, as well as with the local parish council, to raise awareness and to increase interest in those important monuments.
	My hon. Friend referred to the concerns about alleged encroachment on to the site by neighbours. English Heritage cannot stop wrongdoing, but it has a role to investigate any works undertaken without consent, and to consider remedial action. As he knows, it can prosecute if appropriate. One matter is a long-standing encroachment of a patio on to a small part of the scheduled area. Apparently, the house concerned has changed hands recently, as I am sure he is aware. I have been informed that the works have a limited effect on the monument.
	My hon. Friend raised concerns about garden waste being dumped on the newly cleared monument. There was previously a major problem and the management project has considerably reduced it, but some members of the community have asked English Heritage to take action about dumping. English Heritage tells me that it has assessed both the encroachment and the waste dumping issues but believes that legal action would be inappropriate. It wants to encourage and develop the community's understanding of the importance of the site and believes that punitive measures might undermine that intent. However, if my hon. Friend or others hold a different view, I should be interested in hearing it. There is also the practical consideration that disproportionate costs would be involved, especially if the prosecution was unsuccessful. The costs and the time spent on it might be better devoted to building an improved local management scheme and consensus about the importance of the site.
	My hon. Friend suggested that there should be a long-term management plan for the site—between 10 and 15 years. We put that suggestion to English Heritage, which agrees that although such a plan would be beneficial, it would be a challenge to develop in this case as it would require the involvement of all the owners and the historical society. In effect, such a process has already started through English Heritage's management agreement with the parish council, but English Heritage is happy to explore widening that approach for the whole monument. I hope that my hon. Friend welcomes that proposal.
	English Heritage appreciates the importance of a tree management plan on the site—another issue raised by my hon. Friend. The current management agreement empowers the parish council to undertake any necessary works in the event of trees falling. As my hon. Friend knows, the loss of trees is always contentious and we need to balance archaeological conservation with amenity and nature conservation interests. It is always a difficult balance to achieve. I note my hon. Friend's comments about Leeds council. I am told that the council has provided advice and support for the community project team by offering the services of its tree officer to advise on the process of felling and lopping trees. If the volunteer trained by the council has left, there is room for further discussion to see whether another member of the local community can be trained.
	My hon. Friend raised concerns that English Heritage did not inform everybody in the local community before a site visit. English Heritage is aware of only one visit that took place at short notice, without the knowledge and involvement of the historical society. Its normal practice is to agree site visits with owners and occupiers, and all interested parties, so there was obviously an error in that case. I believe that English Heritage has sought community involvement throughout the project, largely through the parish council. That has proved successful, but obviously further work is needed fully to engage the whole community and to achieve the participation of all owners and occupiers so that we really can get improved management of the site. English Heritage has recently visited the site to assess the situation on the ground and is contacting all those responsible. It does not feel that legal action is appropriate, but it will continue to assist the community and monitor the situation through visits and meetings.
	Since the announcement of my hon. Friend's debate, English Heritage has contacted the parish council to set up a further meeting, which I hope my hon. Friend welcomes. Through that meeting it hopes that there will be a further phase of community engagement. As my hon. Friend rightly said, by celebrating the rich history of the site, the local community will come together, work together and appreciate and value that vivid expression of our nation's history, which he so clearly described, that lies literally in some of their back gardens. That is a real treat to me. A consensual approach is the answer to the future management of the monument. That would bring great benefits for the local community, showing how a shared sense of
	ownership of our common inheritance can bring a sense of pride in place and enrich everyone's life.
	English Heritage was pleased to meet the historical society again to explore how its current involvement can be extended to help to achieve the aim of empowering my hon. Friend's local community to care for what I know is an important, historic site that lies literally in their back gardens. Again, I congratulate him on a very good debate.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes past Ten o'clock.